Colley v. James
254 F. Supp. 3d 45
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Edward Colley and Frederick Malcomb, retired Air Force officers, were AFJROTC instructors in Valencia, California; the Air Force decertified them for failing to timely submit ADPE (equipment) inventories and training certificates.
- AFJROTC guidance (mandatory) and HQ emails required annual AIM inventories and submission of training certificates via the WINGS system, with April suspense dates and warnings of probation/decertification for noncompliance.
- Plaintiffs contend they believed they complied (relying on AFM 33-153, prior fax/email submissions, or inactive unit/individual email accounts during spring break) and raised these defenses in administrative appeals; they were decertified effective end of school year.
- AFJROTC appeal upheld the decertifications (willfulness/careless disregard; repeated missed suspenses despite warnings). Plaintiffs sued under the APA, Privacy Act, PRA, FTCA, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment due process and sought preliminary injunctive relief.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief (Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on merits; no irreparable harm shown) and granted the government’s motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paperwork Reduction Act compliance | PRA bars penalties for information collection absent OMB control number; Plaintiffs (non-federal employees) claim PRA protects them | PRA primarily limits collections from the public; Plaintiffs function like government-affiliated instructors and the records are not available elsewhere | Court: PRA claim unlikely to succeed — plaintiffs are not "public" in relevant sense and records are necessary for government property accountability |
| APA / Arbitrary & Capricious review of decertification | Decertification contradicted AFM 33-153, emails were unclear or unauthorized, agency failed to follow its own procedures, and sanction was excessive | AFJROTC instructions are mandatory; emails properly supplemented instructions; Plaintiffs were warned repeatedly and failed to comply; agency acted within its authority and considered arguments on appeal | Court: Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail under APA; agency action not arbitrary/capricious and court will not reweigh the administrative record |
| Privacy Act — inaccurate records | Plaintiffs say agency maintained/cited inaccurate information (e.g., alleged phone calls) and failed to correct records causing adverse action | Record contains corrections (emails showing mistaken phone-call assertion) and agency did not base final decision on uncorrected errors | Court: Privacy Act claim fails — agency acted reasonably to assure accuracy and errors were corrected; no willful/intentional violation shown |
| Due Process (procedural) | Plaintiffs lacked opportunity to be heard before decertification; alleged secret/undisclosed proceedings and inability to confront evidence | Plaintiffs received warnings, notice, and an appeal process before the decertification became effective; appeal provided opportunity to be heard | Court: Due process claim unlikely to succeed — appeal afforded meaningful pre-deprivation process; allegations of secret proceedings unsupported |
| Venue / Transfer | Plaintiffs filed in D.C.; venue acceptable there per §1391 | Defendants sought transfer for convenience to Central District of California (or Alabama); factual nexus stronger to CA/AL | Court: Granted transfer to Central District of California under §1404(a) — private and public interest factors (local interest, defendant’s forum, locus of events, plaintiffs located in CA) favor transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Dole v. United Steelworkers of Am., 494 U.S. 26 (scope of PRA as limiting collections from the public)
- CTIA—The Wireless Ass’n v. F.C.C., 530 F.3d 984 (OMB approval required for covered information collections)
- Envtl. Def. Fund v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275 (deference and scope of arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251 (standard for preliminary injunction requiring clear showing)
- Charette v. Walker, 996 F. Supp. 43 (district court should not serve as a super correction board reweighing military administrative decisions)