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.

Lane v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, District of Columbia

January 10, 2018

MARK A. LANE, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge

         On July 11, 2017, this Court denied plaintiff Mark A. Lane's motion to reconsider the 2011 Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the above-captioned case. (See Order, ECF No. 17 (“July 2017 Order”).) Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of that Order. (See Pl.'s Second Mot. for Reconsideration, Oct. 10, 2017, ECF No. 18 (“2d Mot.”).) For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         In 2008, plaintiff filed a Privacy Act suit against the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), claiming that the BOP was violating the Act by maintaining a copy of plaintiff's presentence investigation report in his inmate file. See Lane v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 08-cv-1269 (D.D.C. June 11, 2009), aff'd, No. 09-5228 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010). The case was dismissed on the ground that the BOP's inmate records are exempt from the Privacy Act's accuracy, amendment, and damages provisions. Id., slip op. at 2.

         In 2011, plaintiff filed the above-captioned case, which is also under the Privacy Act and against the BOP. In this instance, plaintiff claims that the BOP is maintaining an inaccurate record in violation of the Privacy Act by declining his request to supplement the Judgment and Commitment Order in his inmate file with his Grand Jury Indictment. (See Compl. at 4, ECF No. 1.) Concluding that plaintiff's new claim could have been raised in his earlier Privacy Act case against the BOP, this Court dismissed the case as procedurally barred by the doctrine of res judicata:

This Court previously adjudicated the merits of plaintiff's claim against BOP arising from BOP's maintenance of plaintiff's presentence investigation report contained in his inmate file. See Lane v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Civ. No. 08-1269 (RJL) (D.D.C. June 9, 2009) (Mem. Op.) [Dkt. # 26] (Lane I) (finding BOP's inmate records to be exempt from the Privacy Act's accuracy, amendment, and damages provisions), aff'd No. 09-5228 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) [Dkt. # 36]. Because plaintiff could have included in the prior action the current claim arising from BOP's maintenance of the judgment and commitment order contained in his inmate file, he is foreclosed from litigating this claim in a new action.

(See Memorandum Opinion at 2-3, ECF No. 7 (“2011 Mem. Op.”); Order, ECF No. 8 (“2011 Dismissal Order”).)

         Six years later, plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider and vacate its 2011 Memorandum Opinion and Dismissal Order. (Pls.' First Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 16.)

         After the Court denied that motion (see July 2017 Order), plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration.

         ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the July 2017 Order on the ground that the Court failed to address one of the arguments in his first motion: his contention that the application of the doctrine of res judicata constituted fraud by the district court. (See 2d Mot. at 1 (“The Plaintiff/Petitioner would like the District Court Judge to address the Fraud the District Court committed upon the Plaintiff/petitioner . . . . The District Court used Rule 54, for Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to RESJUDICATA, which was a Fraud by the District Court Judge . . . .”).) The Court did not expressly address this argument in its July 2017 Order, so it will do so now.

         In his initial motion for reconsideration, plaintiff argued that the 2011 Dismissal Order should be vacated because:

The Memorandum Opinion by the District Court was Fraud; Misrepresent[at]ion, or Misconduct by the District Court. As the District Court is aware, That RES-JUDICATA is when the parties are the same, the same grounds or claims; and the respondent has a judgment in the[ir] favor. The District Court claimed that RES-JUDIC[A]TA bars the relitigation of issu[es] that [WERE] or could have been raised in a prior action.

(Pl.'s Mot. to Vacate at 1.) However, there is no procedural vehicle that would allow the Court to grant the relief plaintiff seeks. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 sets out the grounds for relief from a final judgment or order. Within Rule 60 there are only two provisions that mention fraud or ...


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.