United States District Court, D. Columbia
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
HALL, Plaintiff, Pro se, LORETTO, PA.
U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, Defendants: Jodi George, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.
B. WALTON, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion
will be granted.
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.
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 3-4. He demands damages of $1,000.
Id. at 4.
Requests Submitted to the Federal Bureau of Prisons
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.
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