Pronin v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
| Decision Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17-1807 (TJK) |
| Parties | DMITRY PRONIN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Dmitry Pronin, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this suit against Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. See ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Specifically, Plaintiff challenges Defendant's decision to withhold as exempt lists of the names of staff members who work at three BOP facilities where Plaintiff has been incarcerated. See id. at 5-6; ECF No. 1-1 at 5-6; ECF No. 26 ("Pl.'s Opp.") at 2.1
Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 24 ("MSJ"). In Plaintiff's complaint, he does not clarify which of the several FOIA requests he has made over the past several years—and which portions of those requests—are the subject of this action. Accordingly, in its motion, Defendant attempts to address all six of Plaintiff's prior FOIA requests by making broad, wholesale arguments as to each that it conducted adequate searches, properly withheld or redacted responsive information under the applicable exemptions, and otherwise released any segregable information. Id. In his response,however, Plaintiff explains that he solely challenges Defendant's refusal to disclose staff lists for three BOP facilities. See Pl.'s Opp. at 2.
Defendant, apparently content to rest on its initial filing, never filed a reply. But its motion falls well short of justifying summary judgment as to the three staff lists Plaintiff has identified. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained below, Defendant's motion will be denied.
Plaintiff, a prisoner currently in BOP custody, submitted six FOIA requests to Defendant between February 2016 through October 2017. See ECF No. 24-2 ("Rodgers Decl.") at 2-8. On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the release of documents withheld by Defendant in responding to those requests. See Compl. Though Plaintiff did not specify in his complaint the particular request or requests at issue, he clarified in his responses to Defendant's motion that he is only challenging Defendant's decision to withhold the names and positions of employees at three BOP facilities: the Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) located in Florence, Colorado; the United States Penitentiary (USP) and FCC located in Terre Haute, Indiana; and the FCC located in Beaumont, South Carolina. See Pl.'s Opp. at 1-2, 6, 8; ECF No. 29 ("Pl.'s Supp. Opp.") at 3, 5. Accordingly, only two of Plaintiff's FOIA requests—Request No. 2016-02619 and Request No. 2017-05599—are at issue here.2 See ECF No. 24-1 ( ) at 1-6; Rodgers Decl. at 2-8.
Defendant received Request No. 2016-02619 on February 19, 2016. Rodgers Decl. ¶ 4. The request sought, among other records, (1) "[t]he complete list of employees of FCC 'Florence,'" (2) the "[f]ull name of Physician Assistant Justillano, who was, until 2014, employed by [BOP] at USP 'Terre Haute,'" and (3) "[t]he complete list of employees of USP/FCC 'Terre Haute.'" ECF No. 24-3, Att. 1. On July 22, 2016, Defendant responded by informing Plaintiff that, in response to the entirety of his request, it had identified 149 pages of responsive records and was releasing 93 pages in full and 7 partial pages but withholding 49 pages in full. Rodgers Decl. ¶ 4; ECF No. 24-3, Att. 2. According to BOP, "[m]ost of the pages withheld in full were lists of the names of BOP staff members." Rodgers Decl. ¶ 4. In the letter, Defendant generally cited FOIA Exemptions 2, 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F) as the bases for its withholdings. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)). Plaintiff appealed that response to the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy, which resulted in BOP's release on March 21, 2017, of an additional five pages, though the record does not indicate what information those pages contain. Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 3; Rodgers Decl. ¶ 4.
Defendant received Request No. 2017-05599 on June 26, 2017. Rodgers Decl. ¶ 9. The request sought, among other records, a "full and complete list of workers of FCC Beaumont." ECF No. 24-3, Att. 9. On July 28, 2017, Defendant responded by informing Plaintiff that, in response to the entirety of his request, it had identified 53 pages of responsive records and was releasing 41 pages in full and 12 partial pages. Rodgers Decl. ¶ 9; ECF No. 24-3, Att. 10. Defendant cited FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F) for any redactions. ECF No. 24-3, Att. 10 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)). As to Plaintiff's specific request for a complete staff list for FCCBeaumont, Defendant stated that FOIA did not require it to "create lists," only to "provide BOP generated documents," and thus it stated that there were no responsive documents to that request. ECF No. 24-3, Att. 10. It does not appear that Plaintiff administratively appealed this request.
On January 18, 2018, and after Plaintiff had commenced this action, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff further supplementing its responses to both Request No. 2016-02619 and Request No. 2017-05599. See ECF No. 24-3, Att. 4. Regarding the former request, Defendant stated that it was re-releasing a single page with fewer redactions, but that it would continue to redact other information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F). Id. Regarding the latter request, Defendant also stated that it would release additional pages, with some redactions remaining pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F). Id. And as to Plaintiff's specific requests for complete lists of staff members at FCC Beaumont and two other facilities not at issue in this action, Defendant stated that it would release the names of the wardens at those facilities because doing so "appear[ed] to outweigh any interest of privacy that those individuals may have, but that with regard to staff members junior to those wardens, . . . their privacy interests, and safety interests attendant to their identities, appear[ed] to outweigh any public interest in the release of their names." Id.
On June 22, 2018, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.3 In arguing that it is entitled to summary judgment,Defendant asserts that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records, that it properly withheld the disputed information under Exemptions 2, 6, 7(C), and 7(F), and that it complied with FOIA's segregability requirement. See MSJ at 4-15. In support of its motion, Defendant also submitted a Vaughn Index describing its withholdings. See ECF No. 24-4 ("Vaughn Index"). Plaintiff filed two responses opposing Defendant's motion, the second after the Court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to supplement his first response. See Pl.'s Opp.; Pl.'s Supp. Opp. Plaintiff's principal argument in both filings is that because Defendant allegedly released a list of names and positions of employees for another facility in response to a prior request, "there exists [a] genuine issue of material fact as to whether [BOP] can authorize the release of such information." Pl.'s Opp. at 5. Defendant did not file a reply.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows 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). The party seeking summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Where the non[-]moving party is proceeding pro se, courts in this jurisdiction will construe thenon-moving party's filings liberally." Cunningham v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 40 F. Supp. 3d 71, 82 (D.D.C. 2014).
"[T]he vast majority of FOIA cases can be resolved on summary judgment." Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). "[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 has complied with its obligations under . . . FOIA." Roseberry-Andrews v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 299 F. Supp. 3d 9, 18 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting MacLeod v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 15-cv-1792 (KBJ), 2017 WL 4220398, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2017)). Indeed, even when the non-movant fails to file an opposition or present a coherent response to the movant's arguments, "a district court must always determine for itself whether the record and any undisputed material facts justify granting summary judgment." Cable News Network, Inc. v. FBI, 271 F. Supp. 3d 108, 111 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).
"To prevail on summary judgment [in a FOIA suit], an 'agency must [first] show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records.'" Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, 877 F.3d 399, 402 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). In making such a showing, the agency can rely on "[a] reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched." Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68. "[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate if a review of the record raises substantial doubt as to the search's adequacy, particularly in view of well defined requests and positive indications of overlooked materials." Reporters Comm., 877 F.3dat 402 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999)...
To continue reading
Request your trial