Darrell Debrew v. Atwood
416 U.S. App. D.C. 457
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Darrell DeBrew, a federal inmate, sued the Bureau of Prisons (BoP) and several BoP officials under FOIA and the Constitution, seeking declaratory/injunctive relief and damages; district court granted summary judgment or dismissed most claims.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit affirmed some dispositions, appointed amicus for remaining claims, and addressed three FOIA claims (Code 408 records, telephone call recordings, DNA Act records) and three constitutional claims (retention of interest on inmate accounts, commissary/phone prices, rule prohibiting inmates from conducting a business (Code 334)).
- For the FOIA Code 408 request, BoP produced a program statement and other Federal Register materials; district court initially denied summary judgment for BoP but later granted it after supplemental declarations. D.C. Circuit found declarations lacked detail about search terms/methods and remanded.
- For telephone recordings, BoP stated it no longer retained recordings; the district court granted summary judgment for BoP and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, accepting agency affidavits absent evidence of bad faith or retention policy.
- For the DNA Act request, BoP told DeBrew his request was insufficient and he did not resubmit or exhaust administrative appeal; district court dismissed for failure to exhaust and D.C. Circuit affirmed.
- On constitutional claims: the court held sovereign immunity did not bar requests for declaratory and injunctive relief; it remanded the claims about retained interest and Code 334 (finding exhaustion or availability issues resolved in DeBrew’s favor) but affirmed dismissal of Eighth Amendment commissary/phone price claim and dismissal of Bivens claims against officials in their personal capacities for lack of specific personal involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FOIA search for records about Code 408 (conducting a business) | DeBrew: BoP failed to search for records generated when adopting the prohibited-act rule | BoP: produced program statement and Federal Register documents; declarations describe search results | Vacated district court judgment; remanded — agency affidavits lacked sufficiently detailed search terms/methods to support summary judgment |
| FOIA request for recordings of DeBrew’s telephone calls | DeBrew: BoP retains recordings and should produce them | BoP: does not retain recordings of his calls; thus no records to produce | Affirmed for BoP — agency entitled to summary judgment where it no longer possesses responsive records and plaintiff offered only speculation |
| FOIA request re: DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act materials | DeBrew: BoP search was inadequate; BoP failed to notify appellate rights | BoP: request insufficiently described documents; DeBrew did not resubmit or exhaust administrative remedies | Affirmed for BoP — DeBrew failed to exhaust administrative remedies; exhaustion prerequisite to judicial review |
| Takings/Due Process challenge to BoP retaining interest on inmate accounts | DeBrew: inmates have property interest in interest earned; BoP’s retention is a taking/due process violation | BoP: lack of Article III standing and failure to exhaust PLRA administrative remedies | Court: Article III standing satisfied; exhaustion requirement under PLRA did not bar suit because appeal to General Counsel was not "available" to DeBrew; claim vacated/dismissal reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to commissary and telephone prices | DeBrew: commissary and phone prices are unconstitutionally high | BoP: plaintiff failed to state a constitutional claim; exhaustion also argued | Affirmed dismissal — price allegations insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation |
| First/Fifth Amendment challenge to rule forbidding inmates from conducting a business (Code 334) | DeBrew: Code 334 is unconstitutional as applied to his receipt of royalty payments | BoP: claimed failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Court: DeBrew exhausted available remedies; vacated dismissal and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy of FOIA search judged on reasonableness, not on possibility of additional records)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits must describe search terms and methods to permit court review)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency not liable under FOIA for records it no longer possesses absent suspicion of bad faith)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (FOIA does not require agencies to create or retain records)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion of available administrative remedies)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognition of damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (Eighth Amendment requires deprivation of basic human needs to state a claim)