Virgil Hall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

• Decision Date: 25 September 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14–1082 (RBW)
• Citation: 132 F.Supp.3d 60
• Parties: Virgil Hall, Plaintiff, v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

132 F.Supp.3d 60

Virgil Hall, Plaintiff,

v.Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14–1082 (RBW)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 25, 2015

Virgil Hall, Loretto, PA, pro se.

Jodi George, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

U.S. Marshal Service, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON

, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

In the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the plaintiff was indicted, tried and found guilty of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Complaint ("Compl.") at 2. That court imposed a sentence of 120 months' incarceration, id. , and the plaintiff currently has been designated to serve his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania, id. at 1.

The plaintiff brings this civil action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), see 5 U.S.C. § 552

, and the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a. He alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), the United States Marshals Service ("USMS") and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") violated the FOIA by failing to respond to his requests for copies of his criminal indictment and judgment and commitment order ("J & C") bearing the appropriate signatures and court seals. See Compl. at 3–4. Further, he alleges that the defendants violated the Privacy Act by making adverse determinations "to hold, try and imprison [him]," id. at 3, based on an indictment and J & C he deems incomplete, inaccurate or incorrect, see id . at 34. He demands damages of $1,000. Id. at 4.

A. Requests Submitted to the Federal Bureau of Prisons

The plaintiff submitted two requests under the FOIA and the Privacy Act to the BOP. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defs.' Mem."), Declaration of Donna Johnson ("Johnson Decl.") ¶ 2. First, the plaintiff sought "Page[s] 1 and 2 only of the original certified Judgment & return showing commitment executed by U.S. Marshal or his deputy." Johnson Decl., Ex. A (Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act Request Number ("No.") 2014–09029 dated February 10, 2014) at 1. His second request sought the same information. Id. , Ex. B (Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act Request Number 2014–09030 dated March 18, 2014). Although the plaintiff claimed that no such document existed, by "asking to correct the records," id. , Ex. A (Attachment to Request No. 2014–09029) at 3, BOP staff construed the request as one to "amend[ ] his judgment and commitment order to bear the signature of a U.S. Marshal's deputy," id. ¶ 2.

The BOP consolidated the plaintiff's two requests, id. ¶ 4, and denied them based on the following explanation:

Attached to request 2014–09029 are two handwritten pages that illuminate this matter. In the fourth paragraph of the first handwritten page, you state that, "unfortunately, there is no original executed and return of a Judgment & Commitment by a U.S. Marshal...." Essentially, you state that the record you have requested will not be found. In your second handwritten page, you further allege that a properly "certified" judgment does not exist.

Your filing in 2014–09029 plainly shows that you do not request an agency record; you merely complain that a record does not exist. To the extent these request[s] can be construed as Privacy Act requests to amend the judgment and commitment order[ ], your request is denied. Your Central File documents are exempt from the Privacy Act's amendment, accuracy, notification, and civil remedy provisions.

Id. , Ex. C (Letter to plaintiff from Michael D. Tafelski, Regional Counsel, Northeast Regional Office, BOP, dated August 22, 2014) at 1.

"Judgment and commitment orders relevant to an inmate are maintained in the BOP's Inmate Central Records System." Id. ¶ 3. The defendants represent that the BOP located and released a copy of the J & C to the plaintiff with its summary judgment motion. See Defs.' Mem. at 6.

B. Request Submitted to the United States Marshals Service

According to the plaintiff, he filed a FOIA/Privacy Act request with the USMS and received no response. Compl. at 4. However, USMS staff conducted "a search of the FOI/PA tracking records" using the plaintiff's name as a search term, and "[n]o records of any requests from the [p]laintiff were located." Defs.' Mem., Declaration of William E. Bordley ("Bordley Decl.") ¶ 4.

C. Request Submitted to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys

The plaintiff submitted a request to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Utah for "VIRGIL HALL'S INDICTMENT CASE NO. 2:10–cr–01109–TS AND REQUESTING THAT THE PERSON WHO SIGNED BE IDENTIFIED AND SHOW HIS AUTHORITY." Defs.' Mem., Declaration of Tricia Francis ("Francis Decl."), Attachment ("Attach.") A (Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act Request dated April 9, 2014) (emphasis in original). The request was forwarded to the EOUSA for processing, Francis Decl. ¶ 5, and the matter was returned to the Utah office "in order to conduct a search of the requested records," id. ¶ 6.

Paul Kohler, the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") assigned to the plaintiff's criminal case, id. ¶ 7, understood the plaintiff's "request as seeking the original Indictment in part because he had already filed a habeas corpus petition ... in which he complained that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Indictment ... did not have the foreperson's signature and the AUSA's signature was illegible," Defs.' Mem., Declaration of Paul Kohler ("Kohler Decl.") ¶ 4. AUSA Kohler located a copy of the original indictment bearing the grand jury foreperson's signature, Kohler Decl. ¶ 6, and provided a copy to the EOUSA, id. ¶ 7.¹ EOUSA staff withheld the foreperson's signature pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(C) and sent the redacted document to the plaintiff. Francis Decl. ¶ 9; seeid. , Attach. F (Letter to the plaintiff from Susan B. Gerson, Assistant Director, Freedom of Information & Privacy Staff, EOUSA, dated October 22, 2014).

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Plaintiff's FOIA Claims

1. Summary Judgment Standard

"FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F.Supp.2d 83, 87 (D.D.C.2009)

(citation omitted). Courts will grant summary judgment to an agency as the movant if it shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and if the agency is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). More specifically, in a FOIA action to compel production of agency records, the agency "is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates ‘that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced ... or is wholly exempt from the [FOIA's] inspection requirements.’ " Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828, 833 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978) ).

Summary judgment in a FOIA case may be based solely on information provided in an agency's supporting affidavits or declarations if they are "relatively detailed and non-conclusory," SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1991)

(internal quotations and citations omitted), and when they "[d]escribe the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record [or] by evidence of agency bad faith." Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir.1981). "To successfully challenge an agency's showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with ‘specific facts' demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records." Span v. DOJ, 696 F.Supp.2d 113, 119 (D.D.C.2010) (quoting DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989) ).

2. The Defendants Conducted Reasonable Searches for Responsive Records

"The adequacy of an agency's search is measured by a standard of reasonableness and is dependent upon the circumstances of the case." Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). An agency "fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504, 514 (D.C.Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A search need not be exhaustive, seeMiller v. U.S. Dep't of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th Cir.1995), as long as the agency conducts "a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents," Elliott v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 596 F.3d 842, 851 (D.C.Cir.2010). And a search is not legally inadequate merely because it yields no responsive records. SeeIturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C.Cir.2003) (stating that "the failure of an agency to turn up one specific document in its search does not alone render a search inadequate").

To meet its burden, the agency may submit affidavits or declarations that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of its search. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C.Cir.1982)

. In the absence of contrary evidence, such affidavits or declarations are sufficient to demonstrate an agency's compliance with the FOIA. Id. If the record "leaves substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the search, [then] summary judgment for the agency is not proper." Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C.Cir.1990) ; see alsoValencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d...