Cunningham v. United States Department of Justice
961 F. Supp. 2d 226
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Benjamin Cunningham, pro se, alleges DOJ, FBI, EOUSA and several individual federal officials withheld or destroyed records concerning his request for federal crime-victim status and seeks FOIA relief and damages arising from a 2005 search of his New York home.
- Cunningham filed multiple FOIA requests (12-3595, 12-4031, 1206853, 13-00146) to various DOJ components and the FBI; agencies conducted searches, produced records (some in full), and in some instances found no responsive records.
- Agencies submitted detailed declarations describing their search efforts; EOUSA, OJP/OVC, and the FBI produced responsive documents or explained searches were reasonable and located no records.
- Cunningham sued in D.D.C., naming agencies and numerous individual officials, and sought production of additional records, summary judgment, and damages; defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment.
- The court evaluated FOIA search adequacy, segregability, capacity of FOIA claims against individuals, sovereign immunity, Bivens/CVRA remedies, and res judicata based on prior New York litigation.
- Court granted defendants’ motion: FOIA claims against individual defendants dismissed (FOIA applies only to agencies); constitutional and CVRA claims dismissed (sovereign immunity, no private CVRA remedy, and Bivens not extended); agency FOIA searches found reasonable and productions mooted portions of the case. Case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual federal employees can be sued under FOIA | Cunningham sought records relief from named individuals for allegedly withholding records | FOIA permits suits only against federal agencies, not individual employees | Court: FOIA claims against individuals dismissed — FOIA applies only to agencies |
| Whether damages/constitutional claims against individuals (Bivens) are available for alleged FOIA/related harms | Cunningham sought money damages for constitutional violations tied to records and the 2005 search | Defendants: sovereign immunity for official-capacity claims; Bivens does not extend to this context; CVRA provides no private right of action | Court: Official-capacity claims dismissed for lack of waiver; individual-capacity Bivens/CVRA claims dismissed (no Bivens extension; CVRA disallows private suit) |
| Whether agency searches for responsive FOIA records were adequate | Cunningham contends searches were insufficient and records were willfully concealed/destroyed | Agencies produced declarations showing searches were reasonable and produced responsive documents where found | Court: EOUSA, FBI, and OJP searches were reasonable; productions were adequate; no segregable withheld material |
| Whether prior litigation or jurisdictional defects bar Cunningham's claims | Cunningham reasserted claims tied to earlier NY litigation | Defendants invoked res judicata, lack of FTCA exhaustion, and lack of personal jurisdiction over some out-of-district individual defendants | Court: Res judicata bars relitigation of claims already adjudicated in S.D.N.Y.; FTCA claims lacked exhaustion; personal jurisdiction lacking over certain NY-based defendants; those claims dismissed (some without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (FOIA requires agency production subject to enumerated exemptions)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (FOIA relief limited to agencies; courts may enjoin agencies from withholding)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (standard for adequacy of agency FOIA search: reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (agency must search systems likely to contain requested records; not required to search everywhere)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (agency affidavits can establish adequacy of FOIA search; presumption of good faith)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations; remedy narrowly construed)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (court refuses to extend Bivens to new contexts)
- Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575 (once requested records are produced, FOIA case may be moot)