Evans v. Department of Transportation of United States, 31092.

Decision Date02 September 1971
Docket NumberNo. 31092.,31092.
PartiesJames O. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Richard L. Horn, Allan Milledge, Milledge & Horn, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Robert V. Zener, Leonard Schaitman, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, and DYER, Circuit Judges.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns the application of the Freedom of Information Act of 1966, 5 U.S.C., § 552. The District Court granted summary judgment against James O. Evans, who was the plaintiff below and is the appellant here. We affirm.

Invoking the provisions of the Act, on May 1, 1969, James O. Evans filed suit against the Department of Transportation of the United States, seeking disclosure of letters allegedly written on a date somewhere about October, 1960, to the Federal Aviation Agency, referring to his capabilities as a commercial airline pilot. The complaint alleged that from 1941 until April 15, 1960, Evans was actively employed by Pan American World Airways, Inc., as co-pilot and captain. On April 15, 1960, Pan American discharged him "for reasons unspecified by the carrier". In October, 1960, * * * "the Federal Aviation Agency received certain letters from a person or persons, or organization unknown to plaintiff, but which plaintiff upon information and belief alleges to be officials of Pan American World Airways, Inc., which said letters contained patently false and libelous allegations regarding plaintiff's mental fitness and abilities". As result, the Federal Aviation Agency summarily suspended plaintiff's medical certificate and required him to undergo psychiatric evaluation and testing. Upon completion of such procedure plaintiff's medical certificate was restored. As a result of arbitration, Evans was also rehired by Pan American.

The complaint further alleged, on information and belief, that the officers and agents of Pan American had obtained the suspension of Evans' medical certificate by the use of the aforesaid letters and improperly advised the arbitrator of the psychiatric suspension and thereby materially and fraudulently prejudiced the arbitrator against plaintiff.

The remainder of the complaint recited Evans' repeatedly unsuccessful efforts to obtain disclosure of the identity of the letter writer, such efforts allegedly extending over a period beginning in 1962 and ending in 1968.

The Department of Transportation raised the affirmative defenses that the documents are exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C., §§ 552(b) (3), (b) (4), and (b) (7), as well as 49 U.S.C., § 1504.

On October 2, 1970, the Department moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that there was no genuine issue of any material fact and that judgment should be entered for the Department as a matter of law. Attached to this motion was the affidavit of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, which stated, "I have determined that in my judgment a disclosure of those records and the information therein would adversely affect the interest of the writer of the letters and is not required in the interest of the public. 5 U.S.C., §§ 552(b) (4), 552(b) (7), and 49 U.S.C., § 1504, and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation, 49 C.F.R. §§ 7.59(a) (2), 7.65".

The affidavit further stated that the letters to the Agency, sought by the plaintiff, described plaintiff's alleged problems of behavior disorder and mental abnormality as related to his qualifications to fly; that the first letter did not identify Evans, but asked what course the writer should follow to bring a pilot's overt acts of behavior disorder and mental abnormality to the attention of the proper officials, indicating the writer's concern about difficulties he might encounter if he named the pilot.

In response to that letter (continues the affidavit), the Chief Medical Officer of the Agency requested the writer to write directly to him and assured him, in specific language, that the letter would be kept confidential. In response to this, the correspondent identified Evans by name and set forth in detail the reasons which prompted the writer to believe that Evans "might be too mentally ill to be allowed to fly as a commercial pilot". The Chief Medical Officer then assured the correspondent in writing that his effort to bring the matter to the attention of the Agency was appreciated and that his trust would not be violated.

The affidavit concluded with the statement that the letters sought by the plaintiff led to a complete investigation, instituted by the Agency, into the qualifications of the plaintiff to hold a pilot's certificate. The letters were made part of that investigatory file "for law enforcement purposes in the enforcement of its regulations".

The final summary judgment entered in the case on October 15, 1970, after an in camera inspection of the letters, stated,

"The Court finds that the material which plaintiff seeks to have disclosed is exempted from disclosure by 5 U.S. C. Section 522(b) (3) and 49 U.S.C. Section 1504.
"The Court further finds that the material is also exempted from disclosure by 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (7).
"Defendant\'s motion for summary judgment is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice."

This Court can well understand why Mr. Evans, almost eleven years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • HOLY SPIRIT ASS'N, ETC. v. US Dept. of State, 80 Civ. 4204.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 20, 1981
    ...Shultz, 517 F.2d 166, 171-72 (D.C.Cir.1975)). 83 See Ferry v. CIA, 458 F.Supp. 664, 666-67 (S.D.N.Y.1978). 84 Evans v. Dep't of Transportation, 446 F.2d 821, 823 (5th Cir. 1971); Lamont v. Dep't of Justice, 475 F.Supp. 761, 782 (S.D.N.Y.1979); Flower v. FBI, 448 F.Supp. 567, 571-72 (W.D. Te......
  • Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 21, 1976
    ...for Humanities, 460 F.2d 1030 (C.A.5, 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 926, 93 S.Ct. 1352, 35 L.Ed.2d 586 (1973); Evans v. Department of Transportation, 446 F.2d 821 (C.A.5, 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed.2d 788 (1972); NLRB v. Clement Bros. Co., 407 F.2d 1027 (C.A.5,......
  • Weisberg v. US Department of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 24, 1973
    ...whether or not there was an investigatory file compiled for law enforcement purposes). And see Evans v. Department of Transportation of United States, 446 F.2d 821, 824, n. 1, (5 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 984, 30 L.Ed.2d 788 (1972) and N. L. R. B. v. Clement Brothers ......
  • Lamont v. Department of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 2, 1979
    ...government employees are excised in this case. 92 Flower v. FBI, 448 F.Supp. 567, 571-72 (W.D.Tex.1978); see Evans v. Department of Transp., 446 F.2d 821, 823 (5th Cir. 1971); American Federation of Government Employees v. Department of Army, 441 F.Supp. 1308, 1314 (D.D.C.1977); cases cited......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT