Blevins v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | C21-0073JLR |
| Parties | SHONDOLYN R. BLEVINS, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Before the court is Defendant Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive's (“ATF”) motion for summary judgment. (MSJ (Dkt. # 55); Reply (Dkt. # 65).) Plaintiff Shondolyn R. Blevins opposes the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 63).) The court has reviewed the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised,[1]the court GRANTS ATF's motion for summary judgment.
In 2012, Ms. Blevins was convicted of several crimes in federal court, which included being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. (See Siple Decl. (Dkt. # 57) ¶ 8; MSJ at 1); United States v. Blevins, 755 F.3d 312, 315 (5th Cir. 2014) (). While Ms. Blevins was under investigation for these crimes, ATF seized Ms. Blevins's .380 caliber weapon. (MSJ at 1.) Since her conviction, Ms. Blevins has submitted two Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, requests to ATF in 2019 and 2020, respectively, requesting information about her criminal case file and the firearm involved in her criminal case.
Ms. Blevins submitted her first FOIA request on April 16, 2019 (the “2019 FOIA request”). (See First FOIA Request.) The 2019 FOIA request sought: (1) “all records related to: Shondolyn Rochelle Blevins #15329-035 Criminal Action No. 12-00142” and (2) “all information regarding the firearm(380) involved in this case.” (Id. (capitalization omitted).) Upon receipt, ATF assigned the request to the Information and Privacy Governance Division (“IPG”). (Siple Decl. ¶ 4.) An IPG processor reviewed the 2019 FOIA request and implemented the standard ATF search protocol, searching the TECS and N-Force databases, the sole online databases used by ATF for law enforcement purposes, for relevant documents. .) These databases “flagged” the existence of a case, prompting IPG to reach out to the applicable field division to inquire about responsive documents. (Siple Suppl. Decl. ¶ 7; Siple Decl. ¶ 10.) In this case, because the crimes occurred in Louisiana, IPG determined that the New Orleans Field Division was the proper division to contact. (Siple Supp. Decl. ¶ 7.) IPG's search request with the New Orleans Field Division also involved searches with relevant satellite offices connected to that division, including a field office in Shreveport, Louisiana. (Siple Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.)
By April 24, 2019, ATF's search in response to Ms. Blevins's 2019 FOIA request located 193 responsive pages of documents. (Siple Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. B.) On September 18, 2019, ATF sent a final response to Ms. Blevins, which included 185 pages of responsive material, some of which were redacted in part or in full in accordance with FOIA withholding exemptions. (Id.) These responsive materials included a Report of Destruction for a .380 caliber handgun. (Siple Decl. ¶ 5.) The remaining 8 pages were property of the FBI and were therefore referred to them for a direct response; the FBI released the remaining pages to Ms. Blevins within a few weeks. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Ms. Blevins did not appeal ATF's response to her 2019 FOIA request. (Id. ¶ 5.) Instead, she submitted a second FOIA request the next year on March 3, 2020 (the “2020 FOIA request”). (See Second FOIA Request.) The 2020 FOIA request sought: (1) “all records related to: the firearm associated with criminal case 3:12-cr-00142,” a “Lincoln .380 semi-auto”; (2) “orders of destruction in place prior to [her] federal trial in August 2012”; and (3) “any information relating to the possession of this firearm by the Louisiana State Police.” (Id.)
In a response letter dated March 18, 2020, ATF denied Ms. Blevins's 2020 FOIA request, explaining in relevant part that:
[S]ince 1979, Federal law has prohibited ATF from expending funds to maintain a national registry of firearms, which includes lists of purchasers and the firearms purchased by private individuals. Since ATF does not maintain a database of firearms purchasers or firearm-transaction information other than those associated with a law enforcement investigation, we are unable to provide the information requested.
(Siple Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. E (“Final Response Letter”) at 1.) The letter explained that this response is a “standard notification” given to all of its requesters and “should not be taken as an indication that the excluded records do, or do not, exist.” (Id.) The letter also provided contact information if Ms. Blevins had further FOIA questions, as well as instructions on how to administratively appeal ATF's response. (Id. at 1-2.)
Although the response letter was dated March 18, 2020, this letter was not mailed until August 13, 2020. (Siple Decl. ¶ 7.) ATF's response did not reference Ms. Blevins's 2019 FOIA request or explain that its present denial was based on it already having provided Ms. Blevins with all responsive records. (See generally Final Response Letter.)
Ms. Blevins administratively appealed ATF's response to her 2020 FOIA request. (Siple Decl. ¶ 7; see id., Ex. F (“OIP Appeal Response”).) The Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) affirmed ATF's decision to deny the request, explaining that “ATF's response was correct” and that “it does not maintain records such as those that [Ms. Blevins] described.” (OIP Appeal Response at 1-2.)
On January 20, 2021, Ms. Blevins filed a complaint alleging ATF's response to her 2020 FOIA request was inadequate. (See generally Comp. (Dkt. # 5); FAC (Dkt. # 10).) She later amended this complaint. (See generally FAC.) Ms. Blevins argues ATF wrongfully refused to provide her materials responsive to her 2020 FOIA request, implying that ATF had such materials because it produced materials in response to her 2019 FOIA request. (See id. at 1-2.) Following the initiation of this suit, ATF conducted a supplemental search in 2022 to look for any additional records, “including any records which were newly established.” (Siple Decl. ¶ 12.) ATF utilized the same search process as it did for the 2019 FOIA request, searching the TECS and N-force databases as well as contacting the New Orleans Field Division. (Id.) While no additional records were located in the database searches, the Field Division produced 2 pages of documents that belonged to the FBI, as well as a signed version of the Report of Destruction which had already been produced to Ms. Blevins, unsigned, in the response to her 2019 FOIA request. ( ).)
On September 30, 2021, the court granted Ms. Blevins's motion to appoint counsel pursuant to this District's Pro Bono Plan. See W.D. Wash. General Order No. 16-20 (Dec. 8, 2020); (Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel (Dkt. # 29) at 1)).
On January 17, 2022, ATF filed this motion for summary judgment. (See generally MSJ.) ATF argues that it “diligently searched and timely responded with all responsive information it could locate, including a Certification of Destruction for the firearm in question.” (Id. at 1-2.) Ms. Blevins counters that ATF did not conduct an adequate search as required by FOIA when it “summarily denied” her 2020 FOIA request. (Resp. at 2.)
As a threshold matter, this court addresses whether Ms. Blevins's failure to administratively appeal her 2019 FOIA request precludes the present litigation regarding her 2020 FOIA request. Next, the court addresses whether summary judgment in ATF's favor is appropriate.
When Congress passed FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, it sought to “permit access to official information long shielded from public view” in order to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy” that often hid the workings of federal agencies. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 14 F.4th 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting U.S. Dep't of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). Federal agencies have a duty to construe FOIA requests liberally. Yagman v. Pompeo, 868 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2017).
A requestor must exhaust his administrative remedies under FOIA before filing suit. Aguirre v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm'n, 11 F.4th 719, 726 (9th Cir. 2021); see Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“FOIA's administrative scheme favors treating failure to exhaust as a bar to judicial review.”). A requestor who is dissatisfied with an agency's response to their FOIA request may exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing that decision within the agency within 90 days after the date of an adverse determination. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(III).
ATF argues that Ms. Blevins did not administratively exhaust her remedies for the 2019 FOIA request and she is therefore barred from raising any issues concerning ATF's response to either request in court. (MSJ at 6-7 ()); see also Aguirre, 11 F.4th at 726 (citing Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 57-64). Ms. Blevins counters that whether she exhausted remedies with respect to her 2019 FOIA request is not relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial