Stimac v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 91-1755
| Citation | 991 F.2d 800 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1755,91-1755 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. Thomas Robert STIMAC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Before CUMMINGS, CUDAHY, and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Thomas Robert Stimac appeals pro se from a district court order entering summary judgment in favor of defendant, the United States Department of Justice, after the court found that defendant had performed a reasonably adequate search for the documents requested by Stimac through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 2 5 U.S.C. § 5.
In 1982, Stimac was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to a 15-year term of imprisonment. See United States v. Hattaway, 740 F.2d 1419 (7th Cir.1984) (direct criminal appeal). He was released from prison in May 1991.
In 1990, Stimac sent a FOIA request to the United States Department of Justice seeking information regarding surveillance of three properties owned by Stimac; and information regarding a contract to purchase information and payment of a lump sum therefor to the kidnapping victim. The Department of Justice responded to the request, informing Stimac that no criminal division records requested by Stimac had been located. One document was found which originated with another government agency, and the request was referred to that agency.
Stimac filed this FOIA and civil rights action to compel production of the requested documents, seeking $1 million in actual damages, and $1 million in punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Summary judgment is proper in a FOIA case where the government has demonstrated that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Miller v. United States Dept. of State, 779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir.1985); Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C.Cir.1983). The sufficiency of the search is measured by a standard of reasonableness. Weisberg, 705 F.2d at 1351. See also Pollack v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 879 F.2d 406 (8th Cir.1989). An agency may prove the reasonableness of its search through affidavits from responsible agency officials, as long as such affidavits are relatively detailed, nonconclusory, and submitted in good faith. Pollack, 879 F.2d at 409.
Stimac contends that it was error to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant where the record shows that defendant's search was not reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents since defendant failed to perform an adequate search. Stimac asks that defendant furnish him with "affidavits establishing [that] the FBI, DEA, INS, United States Attorney's Office for the corresponding districts, Executive Office for United State's Attorneys (EOUSA), the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section in Washington, D.C. and the field offices of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force are not in possession of the requested information." Defendant maintains that the undisclosed document regarding the government's surveillance of Stimac would "clearly reflect the alleged kidnapped person was not held against her will," and instead was acting as "an agent provocateur."
The government submitted a detailed affidavit of Marshall R. Williams, Senior Attorney-Advisor for the Department's Information Services Unit, attesting to the relevant facts. Initially, the Department of Justice assisted Stimac in completing a proper request under the FOIA. Stimac indicated which of the Department's systems he wished to have searched. A Department of Justice search revealed no criminal division records which would fall within the indexes of all criminal division systems which plaintiff requested. One record was located with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), and the request was referred to BATF for processing. The Department of Justice informed plaintiff of the search results, and of the referral to BATF.
The FOIA was not intended to function as a private discovery tool, and the Act does not require government agencies to create records that do not exist. DeBold v. Stimson, 735 F.2d 1037, 1041 (7th Cir.1984); Borom v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys
...Immigration Servs. , 800 F.3d 381, 387 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted); accord Stimac v. United States Dep't of Justice , 991 F.2d 800, 1993 WL 127980, at *1 (7th Cir. 1993) (Table) (search must be "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents"); In re Wade , 969 F.......
-
White v. Dep't of Justice
...& Immigration Servs. , 800 F.3d 381, 387 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted); accord Stimac v. USDOJ , 991 F.2d 800, 1993 WL 127980, at *1 (7th Cir. 1993) (Table) (search must be "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents"); In re Wade , 969 F.2d 241, 249 n. 11 (7th ......
-
White v. Dep't of Justice
...agency failed to conduct a search "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Stimac v. United States Dep't of Justice, 991 F.2d 800, 1993 WL 127980, at *1 (7th Cir. 1993) (Table). Importantly, however, "[t]he issue is not whether other documents may exist, but rather whether......