The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kennedy, District Judge.
This is an action brought under the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sues 79 entities of the federal
government,*fn1 seeking records regarding herself, Mark Rathbun (de
Rothschild), members of his family, President Dwight David Eisenhower,
Rosemarie Bretschneider, L. Ron Hubbard, Sarah Hubbard, the Church of
Scientology, alleged German Nazi-conspiracies infiltrating the United
States Government, and any Independent or Special Counsel who has
investigated the alleged wrongful incarceration of Mark Rathbun.*fn2
Presently before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the motion, the
opposition thereto, and the record of this case, the court concludes that
Defendants' motion should be granted.*fn3
It appears that Plaintiff believes that Rathbun is her husband and is
incarcerated because he was framed by a German-controlled Nazi conspiracy
of having raped and murdered her. Plaintiff alleges that she is a witness
to Rathbun's wrongful incarceration and that he continues to be
wrongfully held because he cannot find her and she cannot find him.
Plaintiff also contends that she is the grand-daughter of President
Eisenhower and was kidnaped by the Germans when she was a child, in
retaliation for his defeat of the Nazis in World War II.*fn4
The many documents submitted by the parties have been reviewed under
the following legal standards and principles. The court may dismiss a
complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
in support of his or her claim that would warrant relief. Fed.R.Civ.P.12
(b)(6); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957);
Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir. 1994);
Thomas v. District of Columbia, 887 F. Supp. 1, 5 n. 2 (D.D.C. 1995).
A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the moving party
demonstrates, when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to
the opponent, that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct.
2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In considering whether there is a triable
issue of fact, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106
S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party opposing a motion for
summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Moreover, "any
factual assertions in the movant's affidavits will be accepted as being
true unless [the opposing party] submits his own affidavits or other
documentary evidence contradicting the assertion." Neal v. Kelly,
963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (quoting Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100,
102 (7th Cir. 1982)).
The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, provides a procedure under which
individuals can obtain access to information about themselves maintained
by federal government agencies, but which protects individuals against
unrestricted disclosure of such information without their consent. The
information that may be disclosed is only that which is "maintained by an
agency" (Section 552a(a)(4)) in a system of records, that is, "a group of
any records . . . from which information is retrieved by the name of the
individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying
particular assigned to the individual." Section 552a(a)(5). of special
relevance to Plaintiff's request for information regarding individuals
other than herself is the firm prohibition against disclosure "to any
person . . . except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior
written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains." Section
552a(b).*fn5 There are certain exceptions to this prohibition, however.
The only one that might arguably be relevant here is Exception 8,
"pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or
safety of an individual . . . ."
In a FOIA case, the Court may grant summary judgment solely on the
basis of information provided in a declaration, when the declaration
describes "the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with
reasonably specific detail, demonstrate[s] that the information withheld
logically falls within the claimed exemption, records.
and [is] not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor
by evidence of agency bad faith." Military Audit Project v. Casey,
656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir. 1981). See also Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820,
826 (D.C.Cir. 1973), cert. denied; 415 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 1564, 39
L.Ed.2d 873 (1974). The agency must prove that "each document that falls
within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable,
or is wholly exempt from the Act's inspection requirements." Goland v.
Central Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir. 1978), cert.
denied; 445 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 1312, 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).
Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff is under the
misapprehension that an agency responding to a Privacy Act or FOIA
request must provide a "search certificate" and a "Vaughn" index. Many of
her complaints in correspondence to the agencies, as well as in her court
documents, are that the agencies responded generally to her requests and
did not provide an affidavit containing a detailed list of the records
searched, the documents withheld, and the reasons for withholding those
documents. Plaintiff is advised that there is no requirement that an
agency provide a "search certificate" or a "Vaughn" index on an initial
request for documents. The requirement for detailed declarations and
Vaughn*fn6 indices is imposed in connection with a motion for summary
judgment filed by a defendant in a civil action pending in court. See,
e.g., Weisberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485
The declarations filed on behalf of Defendants and Plaintiff's own
declaration have been reviewed carefully. In all instances, Defendants
have shown either that (1) no responsive documents exist or (2) all
responsive documents have been produced and that there is appropriate
justification for any excisions made, or (3) the documents sought are
exempt from disclosure. Plaintiff has not shown that there is a genuine
issue of material fact to contradict the Defendants' statement of
material facts submitted with their motion. It is not necessary to engage
in an ...