Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 29 July 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 12-1872 (RC)
• Citation: 202 F.Supp.3d 86
• Parties: Jeremy PINSON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

202 F.Supp.3d 86

Jeremy PINSON, Plaintiff,

v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 12-1872 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed July 29, 2016

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

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson is currently incarcerated in federal prison. While in prison, Mr. Pinson has filed multiple Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, requests with different components of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"). On several occasions, DOJ has asked Mr. Pinson to clarify his records requests, told him that it could not find records responsive to his requests, or informed him that the records he sought were exempt from disclosure by law. Mr. Pinson filed a complaint claiming that DOJ improperly withheld numerous records from him in violation of FOIA. In response, DOJ filed several pre-answer motions, each asking the Court to dismiss or grant summary judgment in its favor on different portions of Mr. Pinson's complaint.

One of those motions was a motion for partial summary judgment as to Mr. Pinson's FOIA claims against DOJ's Office of Information Policy ("OIP"). See generally Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J. [hereinafter OIP Mot. Summ. J.], ECF No. 131. Some of the withholdings at issue in that motion were made at the request of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), however, and the Court ordered DOJ to justify those withholdings after they were not discussed in the OIP motion. See Order of August 27, 2015, ECF No. 235. DOJ later filed a separate justification for these redactions, which the Court indicated it would treat as a separate dispositive motion for partial summary judgment. See BOP's Justifications Withholdings Noted OIP's Dispositive Mot. [hereinafter Defs.' Mot. Summ. J.], ECF No. 239; Order of Oct. 2, 2015, ECF No. 240.

That motion is now ripe, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In its prior memorandum opinion, the Court already explained in detail the factual background regarding these requests. See Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , No. 12–01872, 160 F.Supp.3d 285, 288–92, 2016 WL 614364, at *1–4 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2016). The Court assumes familiarity with its prior opinion and confines its discussion here to the facts most relevant to the present motion.

A. FOIA/PA Request No. AG/10-R1351

By letter dated September 5, 2010, Mr. Pinson submitted a FOIA request to OIP for "any correspondence or electronic messages generated after January 21, 2009 by the Attorney General, or staff within the Attorney General's office, addressed to or intended for the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons." Decl. Vanessa R. Brinkmann ¶ 4 & Ex. A [hereinafter Brinkmann Decl.], ECF No. 131-3. Mr. Pinson requested that no more than two hours of search time be expended and that no more than one hundred pages of responsive documents be produced. See id. OIP received Mr. Pinson's request on September 16, 2010, and assigned it FOIA tracking number AG-10/R1351. See id. ¶ 5 & Ex. B. On November 9, 2012, OIP responded to Mr. Pinson's FOIA request, identifying seventy-two pages of responsive material. See id. ¶ 11. OIP made several redactions on its own behalf, which this Court previously addressed. See generally Pinson , 160 F.Supp.3d 285, 2016 WL 614364. OIP also forwarded the records to BOP for consultation, and BOP requested that certain additional material be withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, and 7. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), (6), (7) ; Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 12; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 10–14.

Specifically, BOP redacted the name of an individual (other than Mr. Pinson) then in BOP custody and the details regarding an inquiry about that individual from an email message a member of the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") sent to the former Director of BOP. See Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 9; Notice Re BOP's Justification OIP's Withholdings at 1, ECF No. 247. In addition, BOP requested that thirty-two pages be withheld in full. Those pages consisted of two memoranda detailing Special Administrative Measures ("SAMs") imposed on two different individuals in BOP custody ("SAMs memoranda"). See Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 9–10. SAMs are special measures that the Attorney General can implement for certain inmates in order to create individualized conditions of confinement that are deemed "reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury." 28 C.F.R. § 501.3(a). These measures may include limitations on individuals' access to the mail, media, telephone, and visitors. See Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 11–12 (citing Decl. Ronald L. Rodgers ¶ 12(a) [hereinafter Rodgers Decl.], ECF No. 239-1). SAMs may be imposed for up to one year and may be extended in increments not to exceed one year, at the direction of the Attorney General. See 28 C.F.R. § 501.3(c).

Upon BOP's recommendation, DOJ withheld in full the two SAMs memoranda, of fourteen pages and eighteen pages in length, respectively. See Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 11. The SAMs memoranda memorialize the Attorney General's SAMs decisions with respect to two inmates and recount in detail the criminal conduct of the individuals subject to the orders, those individuals' continued threat to public safety, and the terms of the SAMs themselves. See id. at 11–12. Although DOJ has indicated that one of the memoranda dealt with a convicted prisoner and the other dealt with a pretrial detainee, it has not specified which memorandum relates to which individual. See id. at 11.

Mr. Pinson administratively appealed OIP's decision on November 19, 2012. In his appeal letter, Mr. Pinson did not challenge any of the excisions made on the released documents. Instead, as relevant here, he challenged the withholding of the SAMs memoranda in full. See Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. D. On February 19, 2013, OIP responded to Mr. Pinson's appeal, informing him that because he had filed a lawsuit related to the denial of this request, his appeal had been closed. See id. ¶ 14 & Ex. E.

B. FOIA/PA Request No. AG/12-0668, DAG/12-0669, and ASG/12-0670

On March 7, 2012, Mr. Pinson submitted a FOIA request to the Attorney General for "all information related to the selection of Bureau of Prisons Director Charles Samuels and Regional Director Paul Laird for those positions" and "any reports of deaths of inmates in federal custody during 2008–2011." Id. ¶ 27. Again, Mr. Pinson specified that no more than two hours be spent searching for responsive records and that he sought no more than one hundred pages of responsive documents. OIP initiated processing on behalf of OAG, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), and the Office of the Associate Attorney General (OASG), assigning the request FOIA tracking numbers AG/12-0668, DAG/12-0669, and ASG/12-0670. Id. ¶¶ 27, 28 & Exs. N, O.OIP identified 139 pages responsive to Mr. Pinson's request among the records of OAG, ODAG, and OASG. OIP released seventy-two of those pages in full, sixty pages with redactions, and withheld the remaining seven pages in full. See ¶ 33. Some of the redactions were made, and all seven pages were withheld, at the request of BOP. The redactions and withholdings on behalf of BOP consist of: (1) identifying information of third-parties referenced in the "information memoranda" from the BOP Director to the Deputy Attorney General reporting on inmate deaths, (2) the identity, recommendation, and curriculum vitae of a candidate for the position of Director of BOP who was not ultimately selected for that position, and (3) the home address of the current Director of BOP. Id. ¶¶ 32–34 & Ex. Q.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

"FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F.Supp.2d 83, 87 (D.D.C.2009) (citing Bigwood v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 484 F.Supp.2d 68, 73 (D.D.C.2007) ). Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment must be granted when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In the FOIA context, a district court reviewing a motion for summary judgment conducts a de novo review of the record, and the responding federal agency bears the burden of proving that it complied with its obligations under FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The court must analyze all underlying facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the FOIA requester. See Will is v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 581 F.Supp.2d 57, 65 (D.D.C.2008). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, "the defending agency must prove that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable[,] or is wholly exempt from the Act's inspection requirements." Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 627 F.2d 365, 368 (D.C.Cir.1980) (quoting Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n v. FCC , 479 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C.Cir.1973) ). To meet its burden, a defendant may rely on declarations that are reasonably detailed and non-conclusory. See Citizens for Ethics & Responsibility in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor , 478 F.Supp.2d 77, 80 (D.D.C.2007) ("[T]he Court may award summary judgment solely on the basis of information provided by the department or agency in declarations [that] describe ‘the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific...