Cowels v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 327 F. Supp. 3d 242

Background

Plaintiffs sought an order compelling the FBI to upload a DNA profile into NDIS and perform a keyboard search, arguing statutory and constitutional violations.
Plaintiffs invoked the DNA Information Act (34 U.S.C. §12592) and the NDIS Manual as creating standards requiring inclusion or search.
Defendants (the FBI) moved to dismiss, arguing the Act grants the FBI discretionary authority and plaintiffs lack constitutional or APA-based claims.
The court examined whether the APA waives sovereign immunity for equitable relief and whether §701(a)(2) bars review when agency discretion is plenary.
The court analyzed procedural and substantive due process claims and a Sixth Amendment compulsory process claim.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding plaintiffs cannot obtain relief under the APA for the statutory claim and that their constitutional claims fail on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether APA permits judicial review of the FBI Director's refusal to include/search a DNA profile under the DNA Information Act	The Act and NDIS Manual create standards obligating inclusion/search; APA §702 waives sovereign immunity for equitable relief	The Act vests broad discretion in the FBI Director; §701(a)(2) precludes judicial review of discretionary agency decisions	Dismissed: §701(a)(2) bars APA review because statute delegates unfettered discretion to the Director
Whether the FBI violated procedural due process by refusing to search/upload DNA	Refusal deprived plaintiffs of access to potentially exculpatory evidence needed for retrial	No protected liberty or property interest; no general constitutional right to discovery or to compel an uninvolved agency to create evidence	Dismissed: plaintiffs lack a protected interest and no right to compel an agency to generate evidence
Whether the FBI violated substantive due process by refusing to include/search the DNA profile	Agency action was arbitrary and interfered with fundamental rights to present a defense	Director’s discretionary decision to protect NDIS integrity is not conscience-shocking	Dismissed: conduct not egregious enough to meet substantive due process standard
Whether the refusal violated the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause	Denial of access/search impairs ability to present third-party guilt evidence at trial	Clause protects trial presentation, not compelling an uninvolved agency to develop evidence during discovery	Dismissed: Clause does not authorize compelling an unrelated federal agency to create or develop evidence

Key Cases Cited

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (judicial review unavailable when statutes leave no law to apply)
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (heightened deference where statute grants broad agency discretion)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (presumption against reviewability of agency decisions to prosecute or not)
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (government must disclose evidence it possesses that is favorable and material)
United States v. Bender, 304 F.3d 161 (1st Cir. 2002) (no duty to produce evidence the government does not possess or control)
Harron v. Town of Franklin, 660 F.3d 531 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step due process inquiry: protected interest, then adequacy of procedures)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process requires conscience-shocking conduct)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (reluctance to expand substantive due process)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (substantive due process protections are narrow in scope)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (defendant’s right to present a complete defense relates to trial admissibility standards)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (right to present relevant evidence at trial)