United States District Court, District of Columbia
MARK A. LANE, Plaintiff,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge
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.
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.
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
(See Memorandum Opinion at 2-3, ECF No. 7
(“2011 Mem. Op.”); Order, ECF No. 8 (“2011
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.)
the Court denied that motion (see July 2017 Order),
plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration.
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.
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
(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 ...