Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
Decision Date | 17 August 2012 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11–1656(RBW). |
Citation | 885 F.Supp.2d 384 |
Parties | Arnold REEVES, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Arnold Reeves, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss. 1 For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.
The plaintiff is a federal prisoner, Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, who has been in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) since April 1996, id. ¶ 4. He alleges that he “did not complete his high school education[ ] prior to BOP detention,” id. ¶ 6, and that, during his incarceration, he “completed over 965 hours, in the BOP Education GED Program.” Id. ¶ 7; see id. ¶¶ 12, 34. Completion of these hours, the plaintiff asserts, makes him eligible for credit of 12 days per year (totaling 156 days) to be applied to his 20–year prison sentence. Id. ¶¶ 12–13.
According to the plaintiff, the BOP has denied his requests for the credit based on “intentionally[ ] and willfully[ ] fabricated BOP records,” id. ¶ 12 (emphasis removed), which do not reflect the 965 educationhours he has completed, see id. ¶¶ 45–46, 48–54. He has brought this action under the Privacy Act, see5 U.S.C. § 552a (2010), alleging that the BOP has failed to maintain its records pertaining to him adequately, and that its reliance on these records has resulted in a decision adverse to him, that is, the denial of the credit to the service of his sentence.2See generally Compl. at ¶¶ 12–17. Among other relief, the plaintiff demands the amendment of the pertinent records and unspecified monetary damages. See id. at 10–11 (demand for relief).
The BOP moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a Privacy Act claim upon which relief can be granted. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (“Def.'s Mem.”) at 1, 9–10.
A plaintiff need only provide a “short and plain statement of [his] claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), that “give [s] the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering such a motion, the “complaint is construed liberally in the plaintiff['s] favor, and [the Court] grant[s] [a] plaintiff[ ] the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994); see Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C.Cir.2000). However, “the [C]ourt need not accept inferences drawn by [the] plaintiff[ ] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.” Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276. Nor must the Court accept “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” nor “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.2008) ( ).
A complaint survives a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) only if it “contain [s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw [a] reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “[A] complaint [alleging] facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability ... stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Although a pro se complaint “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it too, “must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ ” Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681–82 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937).
id. § 552a(g)(1)(C). If the Court finds that “the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual” for actual damages and the costs of the action. Id. § 552(g)(4).
Notwithstanding the protections ostensibly afforded under the Privacy Act, an agency head may promulgate regulations to exempt certain systems of records if the system of records is
maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of ... reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision.
5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2)(C). Pursuant to this authority, the BOP regulations have exempted the Inmate Central Records System from the amendment, accuracy, and civil remedy provisions of the Privacy Act. See28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a)(4), (k).
An Inmate Central File contains sentence computation and good conduct credit information, and all such files are maintained in the Inmate Central Records System. See Program Statement 5800.11, Inmate Central File, Privacy Folder, and Parole Mini–Files (September 8, 1997) at 6–7 ( ). The plaintiff's Inmate Central File, including his “educational programs progress and sentencing computation data, as well as any adjustments therein,” Def.'s Mem. at 10, is maintained in a system of records that is exempt from the amendment, accuracy, and civil remedy provisions of the Privacy Act. And “[h]aving exempted its records from the substantive provision regarding the agency's recordkeeping obligations, [the] BOP effectively deprives litigants of a remedy for any harm caused by the agency's substandard recordkeeping.” Ramirez v. Dep't of Justice, 594 F.Supp.2d 58, 65 (D.D.C.2009), recons. denied,680 F.Supp.2d 208 (D.D.C.2010), aff'd,No. 10–5016, 2010 WL 4340408 (D.C.Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (per curiam); see Jennings v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 657 F.Supp.2d 65, 72 (D.D.C.2009). The plaintiff's claim which seeks the amendment of any information in the Inmate Central File, see Skinner v. Dep't of Justice, 584 F.3d 1093, 1098 (D.C.Cir.2009), and his claim challenging the accuracy of the relevant records, see Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C.Cir.2006) (per curiam), as well as his claim for damages, see Fisher v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 05–0851, 2006 WL 401819, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2006), must therefore be dismissed.4
By seeking the amendment of the BOP records under the Privacy Act, the plaintiff, in effect, seeks recalculation of his sentence whereby he will become eligible for release earlier than will be the case if he had not completed 965 hours of educational programming. He is therefore seeking habeas relief.
“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. George Wash. Univ.
... ... Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). "Disclosure of the parties' identities furthers the ... in [their] opposition to the defendant[s'] motion to dismiss," Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 885 F.Supp.2d 384, 388 n.4 (D.D.C. 2012), the ... ...
-
Iqbal v. Dep't of Justice
... ... 2 the "Government Defendants"); and (2) five agents of the Federal Bureau of InvestigationNestor Duarte, Jason C. Skinner, Brett A. Eubank, Terry ... 2006) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5)); see also Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 885 F. Supp. 2d 384, 87-88 (D.D.C. 2012) ... ...
-
Brooks v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
... ... Plaintiff is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) serving a term of 85 months' incarceration. As ... Dec. 17, 2012) (per curiam); Allmon v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 605 F.Supp.2d 1, 6–7 (D.D.C.2009) (same); Meyer v ... Record System is exempt from subsection (e)(5) of the Privacy Act); Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 885 F.Supp.2d 384, 388 (D.D.C.2012) (dismissing ... ...
-
Aljabri v. Saud
...to Canada. ECF No. 102-1 ¶ 4. But Aljabri cannot make new allegations in his opposition brief. See Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 885 F.Supp.2d 384, 389 n.4 (D.D.C. 2012). In any event, the “fortuitous circumstance” of an airplane “passing through” United States airspace would not amount......