284 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a FOIA and Privacy Act suit seeking records from ATF; attached to the complaint was a FOIA request dated October 15, 2015.
- ATF moved for summary judgment, supported by the declaration of Peter J. Chisholm (Acting Chief of ATF's Disclosure Division) stating ATF never received a FOIA request from the plaintiff around that date.
- Under DOJ/ATF procedures, FOIA/Privacy Act duties to search are triggered only after the agency receives a properly addressed request that reasonably describes the records.
- Plaintiff submitted only a personal declaration saying he placed the request in the inmate legal mailbox and prepaid postage, but did not show it was mailed to or received by ATF or identify an ATF address.
- The FOIA request itself was addressed to "Department of Justice; U.S. Attorney of Southern District of Florida," did not include a recipient address, and only briefly mentioned ATF in one paragraph.
- The district court found plaintiff produced no competent evidence showing delivery to ATF and granted ATF summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATF has an obligation to search/produce records when it did not receive the FOIA request | Plaintiff says his sworn declaration that he mailed the request via prison mail on Oct. 15, 2015 creates a factual dispute shifting burden to ATF | ATF states it never received the request and that plaintiff offered no evidence of mailing to ATF or of receipt | Court held agency duties are not triggered without receipt; plaintiff failed to rebut ATF's unrebutted declaration, so ATF entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether the form/content of plaintiff's submission satisfied FOIA delivery requirements | Plaintiff contends he complied by sending via inmate legal mail with postage prepaid | ATF notes the request was directed to DOJ/USAO-S.D. Fla. (not ATF) and lacked an ATF address; DOJ regs require writing to the component or to FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit | Court held the request itself did not show it was addressed to ATF and therefore did not demonstrate delivery to the correct component |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 874 F.3d 287 (FOIA duties triggered only after agency receives request)
- Pinson v. United States Dep't of Justice, 69 F. Supp. 3d 108 (burden on requester to rebut agency declaration of nonreceipt)
- Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99 (agency entitled to summary judgment when requester fails to rebut declaration that prerequisites for search were not met)