Dick v. Holder
67 F. Supp. 3d 167
D.D.C.2014Background
- Agent Dick, an FBI Special Agent, sues the Attorney General and FBI Director in their official capacities for Privacy Act claims related to a May 2013 BOLO.
- BOLO described Dick as a Subject of Interest, asserted misconduct, and disclosed personal information including SSN and address.
- Plaintiff alleges he suffered various adverse consequences after the BOLO, including security-clearance issues, mandatory fitness-for-duty exams, and professional and personal harm.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court addresses jurisdiction, pleaded claims, and statutory exemptions.
- Court substitutes the FBI as the proper defendant for Privacy Act claims and analyzes Counts I (g(1)(D) and g(1)(C)) and II (g(1)(D), e(10)).
- Court concludes no Privacy Act monetary damages or injunctive relief are warranted, and exercises jurisdictional exhaustion requirements for injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant for Privacy Act claims | Dick named individuals; statute allows agency, not individuals. | Privacy Act suits lie against agencies; individuals are improper. | FBI substituted as proper defendant; individual defendants dismissed. |
| Whether 552a(g)(1)(D) and 552a(b) allow money damages for improper disclosure | BOLO disclosures violated Privacy Act, causing adverse effects; damages available. | Disclosures did not violate exemptions; causation and adverse effects not shown. | Counts I (g(1)(D) and 552a(b)) dismissed for lack of plausible causation and exemption applicability. |
| Maintenance and 552a(g)(1)(C) claim viability | BOLO inaccuracies violated maintenance and caused adverse determinations. | CRS exemptions apply; BOLO not shown to cause adverse determinations with causation. | Count I g(1)(C) dismissed; exemptions foreclose maintenance claim; causation not established. |
| Count II failure to safeguard under 552a(e)(10) | DOJ/FBI failed to implement safeguards to protect confidential records. | DOJ/FBI regulations exist; plaintiff failed to identify breached rule or safeguard. | Count II dismissed for failure to identify actionable safeguard violation. |
| Exhaustion requirement for injunctive relief under 552a(g)(1)(A) | Injunctive relief available despite lack of exhaustion; FBI failed to inform about process. | Exhaustion mandatory; injunctive relief not available for g(1)(C) or (D). | Injunctive relief lacks jurisdictional basis; exhaustion required and not satisfied; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d 1403 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (privacy act safeguards; adverse effects standard)
- Paige v. DEA, 665 F.3d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (g(1)(D) and g(4) interplay; adverse effect requirement)
- Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (privacy act exemptions; law enforcement records)
- Lee v. Geren, 480 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.D.C. 2007) (adverse-determination causation under g(1)(C))
- Reed v. Dep’t of the Navy, 910 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2012) (elements of g(1)(D) and system of records)