Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

• Decision Date: 11 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 78-2267,78-2267
• Citation: 601 F.2d 1,195 U.S. App. D.C. 189
• Parties: , 5 Media L. Rep. 1663 Eddie David COX, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1

601 F.2d 1

195 U.S.App.D.C. 189, 5 Media L. Rep. 1663

Eddie David COX, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.

No. 78-2267.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 11, 1979.

Before WRIGHT, Chief Judge, MacKINNON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion Per Curiam.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie David Cox filed an action Pro se against the United States Department of Justice and the United States Marshals Service ("Marshals") to obtain information he had requested under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1976). After Cox filed suit, the Marshals voluntarily released most but not all of the requested information. Cox amended his complaint (1) to obtain disclosure of the remaining material, and (2) to seek an award of attorney's fees for having caused disclosure of the material the Marshals had released. The district court granted the Marshals' motion for summary judgment. The matter comes before us on Cox' motion for appointment of counsel to pursue the two claims on appeal. We deny the motion insofar as Cox seeks appointment of counsel to pursue the first claim, and we concomitantly dismiss the appeal on that claim Sua sponte. We grant the motion insofar as Cox seeks appointment of counsel to pursue the attorney's fees claim, and we concomitantly, Sua sponte, vacate that portion of the district court's judgment relating to that claim and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on that claim not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cox is an inmate at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. By letter dated November 8, 1976, Cox asked the Marshals for a copy of the Manual for United States Marshals ("Manual"), citing the Freedom of Information Act. Six months later, having received no response from the Marshals, Cox wrote to the Attorney General to report the Marshals' inaction and to appeal what Cox construed as a tacit denial of his claim. In a letter dated May 26, 1977, the Justice Department replied that, owing to its limited resources, it could not pass on Cox' request until the Marshals had. While acknowledging that the Freedom of Information Act entitled Cox to regard the Marshals' silence and its own response as a refusal to release the information, the Justice Department asked Cox to postpone filing suit until the Marshals actually reviewed his demand for the Manual. In December 1977, not having heard from the Marshals, Cox sued.

Four months later, in April 1978, the Marshals notified Cox that it had decided to release a copy of the Manual, with certain deletions, upon Cox' payment of the duplication costs. Unsatisfied, Cox pressed his claim for the remaining material and also added a request for an award of attorney's fees based on the Marshals' release of the noncontroversial portions of the Manual. In an affidavit accompanying his motion for summary judgment, Cox claimed entitlement to the deleted portions of the Manual dealing with the following subject matters: the caliber of the weapon and the length of the barrel on the weapon used by the Marshals: the type of ammunition they used, and the number of rounds they are issued; the type of handcuffs they used, and the key combinations matching the handcuffs; the place where the keys are secured; the radio transmission and receiving frequencies of operational units; arrangement of prisoners during transportation of same, including the use of restraining devices; the position of the weapons on security personnel while transporting prisoners; and the inspection of prisoners during transport for objects used to break open handcuffs. The district court granted the Marshals' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the foregoing items related to housekeeping matters exempt from disclosure under subsection (b)(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Subsection (b)(2) exempts from the disclosure provisions of subsection (a) materials that are "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) (1976). This exemption applies to matters of merely intra-agency significance in which the public could not reasonably be expected to have a legitimate interest. Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 369-70, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976). The exemption covers those portions of law enforcement manuals that prescribe the methods and strategy to be followed by law enforcement agents in the performance of their duties. See Ginsburg, Feldman & Bress v. Federal Energy Administration, Civ.No. 76-0027 (D.D.C. June 18, 1976), Aff'd per curiam by an equally divided court, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 591 F.2d 752 (1978) (en banc), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 1994, 60 L.Ed.2d 374 (1979). It does not apply to "secret law" contained in the rules and practices by which an agency regulates its own staff. Jordan v. United States Department of Justice, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 154, 591 F.2d 753, 763 (1978) (en banc). The exemption exhibits a congressional judgment that material lacking external impact is unlikely to engage legitimate public interest, the touchstone of the policies underlying the Freedom of Information Act.

The deleted portions of the Manual unquestionably fall within subsection (b)' § exemption for routine matters of merely internal interest. ¹ The precise nature of the deleted information is clear from the context from which it was deleted. As the above listing of subject matters indicates, the deleted portions of the Manual pertain solely to housekeeping concerns of interest only to agency personnel. The undisclosed material does not purport to regulate activities among members of the public. Nor does it set standards to be followed by agency personnel in deciding whether to proceed against or to take action affecting members of the public. Differently stated, the unreleased information is not "secret law," the primary target of subsection (a)'s broad disclosure provisions. ² No members of the public are likely to behave or to think differently owing to a revelation about the length of the barrel on the gun used by the Marshals. It is apparent from the released portions of the Manual that Marshals carry loaded guns and that they use handcuffs. We can assume for our purposes that some members of the public have a legitimate interest in that information. It is quite a different matter, however, and in our judgment unreasonable, to expect that the public also has an interest in how many bullets are in a Marshal's gun or in whether the Marshals keep the keys to the handcuffs in their right hip pocket, a drawer, or elsewhere. Such information is of legitimate interest only to members of the Marshals' staff.

Accordingly, we have no difficulty holding that the deleted material is exempt under subsection (b)(2). Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that Cox' appeal seeking the deleted portions of the Manual is baseless. We therefore dismiss the appeal Sua sponte. Cf. Schieber v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 320, 520 F.2d 44, 52 (1975) (per curiam); United States v. Marshall, 166, U.S.App.D.C. 412, 414, 510 F.2d 792, 794 & n.8 (1975) (per curiam).

Cox' claim for an award of attorney's fees may have more substance under the cases in this circuit. The Freedom of Information Act provides that a court "may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case . . . in which a complainant substantially prevailed." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (1976). Cox maintains that the Marshals only released the information after he filed suit, seventeen months after his initial request. He argues that because the Marshals released the bulk of the Manual under the eventual threat of a court order compelling its release, he "substantially prevailed" in his action and is thus entitled to attorney's fees. In entering judgment below, the district court did not refer to Cox' attorney's fees claim, though it later denied, without explanation, Cox' motion to amend the judgment to award such fees.

In authorizing courts to award attorney's fees in Freedom of Information Act cases, Congress sought to encourage private persons to assist in furthering the national policy that favors disclosure of government documents. Consistent with this intent, this court has held that it is unnecessary for a complainant who is an attorney acting Pro se to have actually incurred attorney's fees in order to be eligible for an award of same. Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 188-189, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364-65 (1977). In Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115, 116 (D.D.C.1976), Aff'd by order sub nom. Holly v. Chasen, 186 U.S.App.D.C 329, 569 F.2d 160 (1977), the district court employed similar reasoning in a situation in which a layman was acting Pro se. Consequently, under these cases, the fact that Cox is not an attorney does not disqualify him from receiving an award of attorney's fees. If Cox indeed "substantially prevailed" in his action, then the district court may in its discretion grant him an award of fees.

It is evident from the record that the Marshals released most of the requested information, and did so after Cox filed his suit. That fact alone, however, does not necessarily mean that Cox substantially prevailed in his action. It is true that a court order compelling disclosure of information is not a condition precedent to an award of fees, Foster v. Boorstin, 182 U.S.App.D.C. 342, 344, 561 F.2d 340, 342 (1977); Nationwide Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson, 182 U.S.App.D.C. 83, 87, 89, 559 F.2d 704, 708-10 (1977), but it is equally true that an allegedly prevailing complainant must assert something more than Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 1976). Instead, the party seeking such fees in the absence of a court order must show that prosecution of the action could reasonably...