Harvey v. Holder
123 F. Supp. 3d 3
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Edward Harvey, a federal inmate, filed a FOIA request on April 14, 2014 seeking the staff misconduct investigation report related to a November 2, 2013 prison visit.
- BOP acknowledged the request, indicated typical processing times, but did not produce records within the statutory timeframe; Harvey appealed to OIP and then sued on July 21, 2014 seeking timely processing and alleging APA violations for unreasonable delay.
- Nine days after suit was filed (July 30, 2014), BOP mailed 11 pages responsive to the request: 10 pages fully released and one page with names/IDs redacted under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).
- Harvey conceded the production was complete and did not challenge the redactions, but sought a court declaration that BOP’s delay was unlawful and, later in reply/addendum, requested litigation costs under FOIA as a prevailing party.
- The court evaluated mootness, concluded there was no live controversy because all requested records were produced, and dismissed the FOIA and APA claims for lack of jurisdiction while permitting Harvey to move separately for costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether case remains justiciable after agency produced all requested records | Harvey sought declaration that BOP violated FOIA deadlines; production does not moot claim for declaration | BOP argued production moots the dispute because FOIA remedies are limited to ordering production of improperly withheld records | Moot: production of all records eliminated live controversy; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether APA provides independent remedy for FOIA delay | Harvey argued BOP’s delay is agency action unlawfully withheld and merits APA review | Defendants argued APA relief is unavailable where FOIA provides the remedy | APA claim barred: APA not available where FOIA provides adequate review; plus no relief possible because records produced |
| Whether exceptions to mootness (policy/practice or voluntary cessation) apply | Harvey implied agency misconduct; sought broader relief beyond his individual request | BOP maintained this was a discrete delay in one request, not a general policy | Exceptions not met: plaintiff challenged single delay, not an ongoing policy; voluntary cessation inapplicable |
| Whether plaintiff may recover litigation costs under FOIA as catalyst for production | Harvey later argued his suit prompted BOP’s production and sought costs under the catalyst theory | Defendants contended production was not necessarily caused by the suit; they submitted a declaration disputing causation but had not yet addressed costs fully | Court did not rule on merits: allowed Harvey to file a separate motion for costs so defendants may respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (release of contested records while FOIA suit pending moots exemption dispute)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (once records are produced courts have no further FOIA function)
- Crooker v. United States Dep’t of State, 628 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (same principle on mootness after disclosure)
- Church of Scientology v. Harris, 653 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (articulating the catalyst theory for FOIA fee awards)
- Davis v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 610 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (plaintiff eligible for fees if litigation substantially caused the agency to release records)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1988) (APA does not supply review where Congress provided special and adequate procedures)