Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Vaden v. United States DOJ

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

February 9, 2015

MICHAEL VADEN, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant

MICHAEL V. VADEN, Plaintiff, Pro se, COLEMAN, FL.

For UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants: Alexander Daniel Shoaibi, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TANYA S. CHUTKAN, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10)

Page 208

and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12).[1] For the reasons discussed below, the complaint and this civil action will be dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who had been " sentenced in the Superior Court [of] the District of Columbia," is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (" BOP" ) after having violated the conditions of his parole release. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (" Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J." ) at 2. He " is . . . currently confined at the United States Penitentiary -- II at the Federal Correctional Complex, in Coleman, Florida." Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss (" Def.'s Mem." ), Declaration and Certification of Records by Caixa Santos (" Santos Decl." ) ¶ 5.

According to plaintiff, on July 1, 2013, he became aware of " custody classification points contained within [his] male custody classification form[,] specifically the inconsistencies regarding various miss[c]ored subjects." Complaint (" Compl." ), Attachment (" Attach." ) at 1.[2] He contended that his base score, custody score, variance score and total score had been calculated incorrectly, and that " the public safety factor [assigned to him] should have been waived," id., Attach. at 1 (page numbers designated by plaintiff).[3] Plaintiff alleges that the BOP has " intentionally and willfully miscal[culated] points in [his] male custody classification form," id. at 5, such that he is designated to a more secure facility than is warranted, see Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 2.[4]

Plaintiff brings this action under the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a, alleging that the BOP fails to maintain its records pertaining to him with the level of accuracy, see Compl., Attach. at 3, required under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). He contends that, as a result, the BOP has made a determination adverse to him in reliance on its records, Compl., Attach. at 4. Plaintiff demands injunctive relief through correction of the allegedly inaccurate records and designation " to the appropriate security level facility." Id. at 5. He also demands

Page 209

monetary damages. Id.; see id., Attach. at 5.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Does Not Bar This Action

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action as is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA" ), see 42 U.S.C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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