Pinson v. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No.: 12–1872 (RC)

Citation236 F.Supp.3d 338
Decision Date17 February 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No.: 12–1872 (RC)
Parties Jeremy PINSON, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)

Theodore C. Whitehouse, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Damon William Taaffe, Eric Joseph Young, Carl Ezekiel Ross, Jesse Dyer Stewart, Theresa Ekeoma Dike, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

While in prison, pro se plaintiff Jeremy Pinson filed multiple Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, requests seeking records from various components of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"). In addition to releasing a number of records to Pinson, the DOJ asked Pinson to clarify some of her1 records requests, told her that it could not find records responsive to some of her requests, and informed her that the some of the records she sought were exempt from disclosure by law. Pinson filed a complaint challenging some of these determinations and alleging that the DOJ improperly withheld records.

In two prior opinions, this Court has granted in part and denied in part the DOJ's first and second requests for summary judgment as to the claims against the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). See Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Respect BOP, ECF No. 147; Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , No. 12-1872, 2016 WL 29245, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2016), ECF No. 259 ; Defs.' 2d Mot. Summ. J. Respect BOP, ECF No. 265; Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 199 F.Supp.3d 203, 218, No. 12–1872, ECF No. 309, 2016 WL 4250230 (D.D.C. 2016).2 Now before the Court is the DOJ's third motion for summary judgment as to eleven FOIA requests. See Defs.' 3d Mot. Summ. J. Respect BOP ("Defs.' 3d MSJ"), ECF No. 293. The DOJ argues that, for each request, the BOP conducted adequate searches reasonably calculated to identify responsive records and made proper withholdings pursuant to FOIA exemptions. See Defs.' Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 293–2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the DOJ's motion for partial summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This Court has already explained the factual background in detail in its prior Memorandum Opinion. See Pinson , 2016 WL 29245, at *1–5, ECF No. 259 at 3–12. The Court assumes familiarity with its prior opinion and confines its discussion to the facts most relevant to the present motion.

A. Request No. 2010–12533

In August 2010, Pinson submitted a request to the BOP for (1) inmate handbooks from ADX Florence and (2) documents relating to the use of force against Pinson during November 2007 and any related Administrative Remedy Requests. See Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 32; 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A, ECF No. 293–3; Christenson Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. 2, ECF No. 147–6. Pinson limited her request to two hours of search time and 100 pages of information. 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 5. After the BOP was denied summary judgment by this Court, it reprocessed the request.3 See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 4.

The DOJ released 148 pages of responsive records in full and 32 pages in part, and informed Pinson that it withheld 15 pages in full. Id . ¶ 12 & Ex. B. Exemption 5 was used to withhold several sections of the After Action Review Reports, including the determination, recommendations, and results. See Vaughn Index at 1–7, ECF No. 293–3, Ex. C. Exemption 7(C) and 7(F) were used to withhold a variety of information, including sections of documents naming government employees and inmates. See Vaughn Index at 1–7. Exemption 7(F) was also used to withhold the sections of documents which contained "security information used by the BOP to manage inmates and ensure the safety of the institution and the times certain activities occurred" as well as "the BOP's monitoring and classification assignments for Pinson." See, e.g. , Vaughn Index at 3, 4, 7. Exemption 7(C) was used to withhold in full a document assessing a staff injury, and Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F) were used to withhold the daily assignment rosters for facility staff. See Vaughn Index at 3, 6–7. The DOJ now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its search was adequate and that it produced to Pinson all responsive records after properly withholding some records.4 See Defs.' 3d MSJ at 1–2; Vaughn Index at 1–7.

B. Request No. 2011–8435

In October 2010, Pinson submitted a request to the BOP seeking production of the (1) Rated Capacity Computation Form (EMS–36); (2) Site Safety and Control Plan (ICS Form 208); (3) Incident Roster and Activity Log (ICS Form 214); and (4) Incident Action Plan Safety Analysis (ICS Form 215a), all for FCI Talladega. See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 44 & Ex. D; Greene Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 1, ECF No. 147–5. A Rated Capacity Computation Form is completed by institutions "to determine and report their rated capacity and total capacity for overall strategic planning." 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 45. The various ICS forms are part of an incident management system adopted by the BOP that has not yet been activated at FCI Talladega. See id. ¶¶ 47–48. Pinson limited her request to two hours of search time and 100 pages of information. See id . ¶ 44; Greene Decl. Ex. 1. By letter dated December 2, 2010, the BOP informed Pinson that no responsive documents had been located. See Greene Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 2. The DOJ's Office of Information Policy ("OIP") closed Pinson's appeal of that determination due to pending litigation in this case, see id. ¶ 7 & Ex. 4, but, in light of the previous litigation, the BOP later conducted another search "in additional areas" for responsive documents and located 4 pages that were released to Pinson in full, see Blanco Decl. ¶ 10 & Attach. 1, ECF No. 147–4. The Court denied the DOJ's first motion for summary judgment because the BOP failed to provide a detailed affidavit setting forth the search terms and type of search performed to locate records responsive to Request No. 2011–843. See Pinson , 2016 WL 29245, at *18; ECF No. 259 at 40–41.

After the Court issued that opinion the BOP re-processed Request No. 2011–843. See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 4. The DOJ released 3 additional pages of responsive records in full and 1 page in part, id . ¶ 49 & Ex. E, and informed Pinson that it redacted a staff phone number under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F), see Vaughn Index at 8. The DOJ now again moves for summary judgment, this time on the grounds that its search was adequate and that it produced all responsive records not properly withheld. See Defs.' 3d MSJ at 1–2; Vaughn Index at 8.

C. Request No. 2011–13516

In 2011, Pinson submitted a request to the BOP for the production of "[a]ll After–Action Review Reports, pertaining to any inmate on inmate assault and/or homicide" occurring at FCI Talladega during 20092010. See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 53 & Ex. F; Greene Decl. Ex. 5. The BOP initially responded that it would withhold these records in full under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) because the requested records concerned other inmates. See Greene ¶ 8 & Ex. 6. After Pinson appealed this determination to the OIP, the BOP conducted a search for requested After Action Review Reports and located 97 total pages of responsive records. See id. ¶ 8 & Ex. 7. The BOP ultimately released 58 pages in full and 39 pages in part, withholding the names and register numbers of other inmates pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C). See id. ¶ 8; id. Ex. 8; id. Ex. 9, at 1–2. The Court denied the DOJ's first motion for summary judgment because the BOP failed to provide a detailed affidavit setting forth the search terms and type of search performed to locate records responsive to Request No. 2011–1351. See Pinson , 2016 WL 29245, at *18; ECF No. 259 at 40–41.

After the Court issued that opinion the BOP re-processed Request No. 2011–1351. See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 4. By letter dated May 25, 2016, the DOJ released 9 pages of responsive records in part. Id . ¶ 56 & Ex. G. The BOP withheld the determinations and recommendations of the After Action Review Reports under Exemption 5. Vaughn Index at 10–11. The BOP redacted the names of other inmates, and file numbers containing those names, under Exemption 7(C). Vaughn Index at 9–11. Exemption 7(F) was also applied to withhold "the correctional management techniques" the BOP used on other inmates, including their classification and monitoring assignments. Vaughn Index at 9–11. The DOJ now again moves for summary judgment, this time on the grounds that its search was adequate and that it produced to Pinson all responsive records to which she is entitled after properly withholding some records.7 See Defs.' 3d MSJ at 1–2; Vaughn Index at 9–11.

D. Request No. 2011–18868

In 2010, Pinson submitted a request to the BOP for the production of documents associated with her placement at ADX Florence. See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 64 & Ex. H; Greene Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 10. The staff at FCI Talladega, where Pinson had been housed before she was transferred to ADX Florence, searched its facility for responsive documents. See Greene Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 10. After this request was twice remanded by OIP for reprocessing, the BOP identified 537 responsive pages, released 333 pages in full and 162 pages in part, and withheld 42 pages in full pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C). See id. ¶¶ 10–12 & Ex. 17. The Court denied the DOJ's first motion for summary judgment because the BOP failed to provide a detailed affidavit setting forth the search terms and type of search performed. See Pinson , 2016 WL 29245, at *18; ECF No. 259 at 40–41.

After the Court issued that opinion the BOP re-processed Request No. 2011–1886. See 3d Christenson Decl. ¶ 4. By letter dated June 2, 2016, the DOJ released 52 additional pages of responsive records in full and 48 pages in part, and informed Pinson that it redacted or withheld records. Id . ¶ 70 & Ex. I. The BOP withheld ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Pinson v. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 23, 2018
    ...WL 29245, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2016) ; Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 199 F.Supp.3d 203 (D.D.C. 2016) ; Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 236 F.Supp.3d 338 (D.D.C. 2017). Now before the Court is DOJ's fourth motion for summary judgment as to the ten remaining FOIA requests to BOP.2 Se......
  • Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 29, 2017
    ...been dealt with in the context of any of BOP's motions for summary judgment. See generally Pinson v. Dep't of Justice, No. 12-cv-1872, 236 F.Supp.3d 338, 2017 WL 663523 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017); Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. 12-cv-1872, 2016 WL 29245 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2016) ; Pinson v. U......
  • Dillon v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 16, 2020
    ...1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975)."FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." Pinson v. DOJ , 236 F. Supp. 3d 338, 352 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol , 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009) ). In general, summary judgment is ......
  • Bloche v. Dep't of Def.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 29, 2019
    ...44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975)."FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 236 F. Supp. 3d 338, 352 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol , 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009) ). In general, summary ......
  • 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