Moon v. Rivas
| Decision Date | 21 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-00890-NJR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
| Parties | DARNELL W. MOON, Former No. 34077-044, Plaintiff, v. HENRY RIVAS, M. NEUMANN, STEVEN CARDONA, J. S. WALTON, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, LESLIE SMITH, D. SCOTT DODRILL, BRIAN K. DAVIS, AMBER NELSON, PAUL M. LAIRD, D. SCHIAVONE, APRIL CRUITT, WILLIAM FALLS, JOHN BAIR, J. SIMMONS, T. CAPALDO, STEPHEN COLT, G. BURGESS, E. GARCIA, CALVIN JOHNSON, and DAN SPROUL, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Darnell Moon is a former inmate in the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Until recently, he was housed in the Communications Management Unit ("CMU") at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois ("USP-Marion"). He currently resides in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Proceeding pro se, Moon filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1331, the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, the Federal Wiretapping Act ("FWA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, et seq., and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Moon's primary complaint is that federal officials illegallymaintained and disseminated a file containing private and religious information about him to other federal agencies. These officials did not secure his written authorization or consent before doing so. Moon's multiple requests for the information since 2012 have been ignored or denied. He now sues numerous federal officials for violating his rights under the FOIA, Privacy Act, FWA, and First Amendment. He seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and injunctive relief.
Moon has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 is meant to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts, and it applies to non-prisoner plaintiffs and prisoners alike. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 275-77 (6th Cir. 1997) () ("[T]he only logical interpretation of the statute is that non-prisoners have the option to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a)."). Under § 1915, an indigent party may commence a federal court action, without paying required costs and fees, upon submission of an affidavit asserting inability "to pay such fees or give security therefor" and stating "the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Moon has done so in the instant case, but the Court's inquiry does not end there.
Section 1915(e)(2) requires careful threshold scrutiny of the complaint filed by an IFP plaintiff. A court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file IFP or dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir.1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When assessing an IFP motion, a district court should inquire into the merits of the claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed IFP. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982). The complaint survives preliminary review under this standard. Accordingly, Moon shall be granted leave to proceed IFP, and his complaint shall receive further review.
According to the complaint, Darnell Moon transferred into the Communications Management Unit ("CMU") at USP-Marion on or around January 10, 2012 (Doc. 1, p. 9). The CMU consists almost entirely of Muslims. Within six months of his transfer, Moon converted to Islam (Doc. 1, p. 10). In the CMU, the communications of these inmates are closely monitored.
The CMU is allegedly managed by a Counterterrorism Unit ("CTU") located in Martinsburg, West Virginia (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). CTU staff members work on site at USP-Marion to classify and process inmates who are entering or exiting the CMU. These individuals use video and audio recording devices to monitor all incoming and outgoing communications of CMU inmates, including mail, emails, phone calls, and all direct contacts with outsiders (Doc. 1, p. 10). The CTU staff at USP-Marion includes Defendants Smith, Schiavone, Capaldo, Colt, Cruitt, Bair, Simmons, and Falls.
Moon alleges that all of the defendants intercepted his phone calls in violation of the FWA (Doc. 1, p. 11). After intercepting his calls, the defendants disseminated information obtained from them to other federal agencies. When Moon confronted Defendants Rivas,Cardona, Neumann, and Walton about the practice, they told Moon to "mind [his] own business" (Id.).
The BOP, CTU, and CMU allegedly collected and maintained private information about Moon in a "CTU file," which is not part of his BOP file. This file allegedly contains his social security number, tax records, family records, and records of his communications and activities, among other things. Some of these communications and activities are religious in nature, such as recorded conversations with other Muslims and recordings of the weekly Islamic religious sermon in the CMU. Moon alleges that information from this file was also disseminated to other federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Central Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Moon was allegedly placed on the "no fly" list as a result. He believes that his religious activities are still being monitored.
According to the complaint, the practice of collecting, storing, and disseminating private information about Moon violates his rights under the Privacy Act, the First Amendment, and the FWA. The failure of the BOP and CTU to turn over this information upon request to Moon allegedly violates his rights under FOIA. Moon now seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and injunctive relief (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 14).
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court deems it appropriate to reorganize the claims in Moon's pro se complaint into four (4) counts, as set forth below.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts should not be construed as an opinion regarding their merit.
Counts 1 & 2 - FOIA and Privacy Act
FOIA and the Privacy Act apply to federal, not state, agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). FOIA is a federal law authorizing access to information, and it provides for injunctive relief. 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Privacy Act is a federal law that protects information, with limited access provisions, and it provides for money damages. 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Moon seeks relief under both.
Moon's request for injunctive relief under FOIA (Count 1) shall receive further review. FOIA authorizes any person to request access to federal agency records, unless those records are protected from disclosure by statute or by one of three special law enforcement records exclusions. See Enviro Tech Int'l v. EPA, 371 F.3d 370, 374 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), (b)). Disclosure is mandatory, unless the requested record is clearly exempted from disclosure. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)). Exemptions are construed narrowly. Id. FOIA vestsfederal courts with jurisdiction "to enjoin [an] agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld" from a complainant. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 445 U.S. 375 (1980).
One or more of the exemptions or special law enforcement records exclusions may apply to Moon's FOIA requests. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (2), (5), (7). At this early stage, the Court cannot tell. And because the exemptions must be construed narrowly, the Court cannot dismiss the FOIA claim on this basis. Moon shall be allowed to proceed with this claim.
In contrast to FOIA, the Privacy Act requires federal agencies to take certain precautions to keep personal information confidential (Count 2). Big Ridge, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Com'n, 715 F.3d 631, 650 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)) ("No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains. . . ."); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial