United States District Court, District of Columbia
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge.
action brought under the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, plaintiff, a
federal prisoner, has sued the Department of Justice
(“DOJ”) and the following DOJ components: United
States Marshals Service (“USMS”), Drug
Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), Executive
Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”),
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Pending before
the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
[Dkt. # 25] and Defendants' Combined Motion in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Counter
Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 22]. For the reasons
explained below, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion,
grant defendant's motion, and enter judgment accordingly.
February 2015, plaintiff requested the same information from
each DOJ component, namely “all records and/or data . .
. under my name and/or identifier assigned to my name.”
See Ex. A to Decl. of David Hardy [Dkt. # 22-2, pp.
2-10] (“FOIA Request”). Plaintiff further wrote:
The records sought but not limited to, is [sic] the compiled
file containing (1) arrest records, (2) investigation and/or
investigatory reports, (3) reports or evidentiary and/or
scientific information findings, (4) wants, warrants, and/or
detainers, (5) final and closing investigation reports, and
(6) any and/or all information, data, or reports not
otherwise exempt by statute . . . or law[.]”
Id. Plaintiff also requested “a copy of
specific [FOIA] regulations of your Department . . . so that
compliance is adhered to . . . .” FOIA Request at 2.
Court will recount each component's response to
plaintiff's request in the order set out in
Defendants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There
is No Genuine Dispute [Dkt. # 22-1], which is more
comprehensive than plaintiff's purported “Statement
of Facts” set out in the Memorandum of Law in Support
of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
request submitted to DOJ was forwarded to the FBI as the
component most likely to have responsive records. Hardy Decl.
¶ 6. In a letter dated March 13, 2015, the FBI informed
plaintiff that a search of its Central Records System had
located no “main file records” responsive to his
request. It further informed plaintiff that it would conduct
an additional search if he provided additional information.
Id., Ex. C. Plaintiff instead filed an appeal to the
Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), which, by
letter dated June 16, 2015, affirmed the FBI's action and
informed plaintiff about his right to file a lawsuit.
Id., Ex. F.
letter dated March 27, 2015, the USMS acknowledged
plaintiff's request and informed him that it had
commenced a search for responsive records. USMS enclosed, as
plaintiff had requested, “a copy of the Department of
Justice FOIA regulations[.]” Decl. of William E.
Bordley [Dkt. # 22-2, pp. 30-37], Ex. B.
letter dated August 14, 2015, USMS informed plaintiff that it
had searched its files in the Middle District of Florida
(where plaintiff was arrested and detained), had located 32
responsive pages, and was releasing 21 pages. It further
informed plaintiff that third-party information was withheld
under FOIA exemption 7(C). Bordley Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 and
Ex. C. In a separate letter dated August 14, 2015, the USMS
informed plaintiff that in response to a referral of two
pages from DEA, it was releasing those pages with the name of
a USMS employee redacted under FOIA exemption 7(C).
Id., Ex. J.
separate letters also dated August 14, 2015, the USMS
referred three pages that had originated with DEA to that
component, id., Ex. D, and eight pages that had
originated with EOUSA to that component, each “for
action and direct response to the requester, ”
id., Ex. F.