Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.



July 31, 1986


The opinion of the court was delivered by: HOGAN


 Thomas F. Hogan, U.S.D.J.

 Michael Alan Crooker is a pro se plaintiff who is currently incarcerated at the federal penitentiary in Petersburg, Virginia. Under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, Crooker seeks an order directing defendant United States Marshals Service to produce agency records maintained by the Service in his name. The matter is before the Court on defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In consideration of the entire record in this case, the Court shall grant defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.


 The Court has conducted an exhaustive survey of federal court dockets to determine the number of FOIA and/or Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) suits filed historically by plaintiff. This survey reveals that Crooker has become somewhat of an expert in FOIA/Privacy Act litigation. Since 1978, Crooker has filed at least sixty such actions. *fn1" See supra, Tables A-F.

 On March 24, 1983, defendant in the present FOIA action received a letter from the plaintiff, which requested any records that were maintained by the defendant in his name. The Service construed Crooker's letter as a Privacy Act request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The Service had a significant backlog of prior requests, and responded to such requests in the order in which they were received. Crooker v. United States Marshals Service, 577 F. Supp. 1217 (D.D.C. 1983). When the Service responded to plaintiff's request in April of 1983, it made plaintiff aware of its backlog, but advised him that it had begun to process his request. Id. Dissatisfied with the Service's response, Crooker filed suit in this Court (C.A. No. 83-1648). On October 28, 1983, Judge June Green of this Court granted the Service's motion to dismiss, because Crooker had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 1217-18. Dismissal was without prejudice.

 Subsequently, Crooker filed in this Court another FOIA case against the Service (C.A. No. 85-2599), alleging that defendant had illegally withheld records maintained in Crooker's name. The Service moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, contending that the information sought by plaintiff had been validly withheld under FOIA exemptions (b)(5) ("inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters") and (b)(7) ("investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes"). Crooker failed to oppose the Service's motion. After evaluating the merits of the Service's exemption arguments, Judge Oberdorfer granted the motion in toto, and dismissed the FOIA complaint with prejudice (Order of December 16, 1985).

 The res judicata implication of Judge Oberdorfer's order (see also Memorandum Opinion of December 16, 1985) is obvious with respect to the present FOIA action. Moreover, Crooker has failed again to oppose a motion to dismiss filed by the Service. *fn2" Therefore, after evaluation of the complaint and the merits of defendant's unopposed motion, the Court shall grant the Service's motion, and enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice (again). Furthermore, given the plethora of FOIA and/or Privacy Act suits filed by plaintiff over the last eight years, which name several agencies as defendants time and time again, see supra note 1 and accompanying text, and the fact that plaintiff fails routinely to oppose motions to dismiss, see, e.g., supra note 2; infra, Tables A-F), it is evident that Crooker's litigation efforts have been for purposes of harassment -- i.e., not exercised in good faith as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Accordingly, as a sanction under Rule 11, the Court shall enter an order requiring the plaintiff, when filing any further FOIA and/or Privacy Act complaints in this Court that name any of the aforementioned agencies as defendants, to attach thereto a memorandum of law stating why the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the intended suit (i.e., a memorandum showing that the FOIA or Privacy Act request has not been previously ruled upon by a district court). TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A. TABLE OF AGENCY CASES Slip Op. at 1 B. UNREPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Slip Op. at 2-10 C. REPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Slip Op. at 11-14 D. REPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS Slip Op. at 15-17 E. UNREPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS Slip Op. at 18-19 F. INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICES Slip Op. at 20 A. TABLE OF AGENCY CASES Number of Cases Number of Cases Cases filed filed in the Appealed in the 1st D.C. Circuit in the D.C. and 2nd naming Circuit naming Circuit agency agency naming AGENCY agency * United States Department of Justice 10 2 13 United States Department of Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 8 4 2 Federal Bureau of Prisons 5 1 1 United States Marshal's Service 3 2 Drug Enforcement Administration 2 1 7 Federal Bureau of Investigation 3 1 2 United States Parole Commission 2 United States Secret Service 2 Central Intelligence Agency 2 1 Office of the Pardon Attorney 1 United States Postal Service 1 Department of the Army 1 United States Department of State 1 1 Internal Revenue Service 1 1 Office of the Attorney General 1 Office of the Solicitor General 1 1


© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.