Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134259
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, an inmate at ADX Florence, filed multiple FOIA requests with DOJ components, including the Civil Rights Division (CRD) in 2009, 2010, and allegedly 2011.
- CRD acknowledged responding to the 2009 request (all records located) and the 2010 request (fourteen reports provided) and advised Pinson to contact the Bureau of Prisons for certain field-office records.
- Pinson claims he submitted a 2011 FOIA request via a prison counselor seeking complaints about ADX Florence; CRD has no record of receiving that request.
- The DOJ moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on various FOIA claims; the motion at issue addressed CRD-related FOIA claims for 2009, 2010, and 2011.
- Pinson’s Corrected Second Amended Complaint omitted the 2009 and 2010 CRD requests, effectively abandoning those claims; the only disputed CRD claim remaining was the alleged 2011 request.
- The court treated the DOJ’s motion as one for summary judgment (materials outside the pleadings were relied upon) and granted summary judgment to DOJ on the 2011 claim because Pinson offered insufficient evidence that CRD received the 2011 request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pinson’s 2009 and 2010 FOIA claims against CRD remain in the case | Pinson had raised those FOIA requests in earlier pleadings | DOJ sought judgment on those claims | Court held claims were abandoned by omission from the Corrected Second Amended Complaint; DOJ’s motion as to them denied as moot |
| Whether CRD received Pinson’s alleged 2011 FOIA request | Pinson says he submitted the request through prison staff and signed a postage form | DOJ produced a declaration and records showing no receipt of a 2011 CRD FOIA request | Court held DOJ entitled to summary judgment because Pinson failed to present evidence creating a genuine dispute that CRD received the request |
| What evidentiary showing is required to survive summary judgment on nonreceipt | Pinson relied on his declaration that he handed the request to a counselor and a postage form | DOJ relied on a sworn declaration of its employee and records search showing no receipt | Court applied summary judgment standards and held a plaintiff must provide more than speculative or conclusory evidence of receipt to defeat an agency’s declaration |
| Proper procedural standard where parties rely on materials outside the pleadings | Pinson relied on non-pleading materials (declaration) and DOJ relied on letters and a DOJ declaration | DOJ argued dismissal or summary judgment; court noted exhaustion issues are often treated at dismissal but materials here required summary-judgment treatment | Court treated the motion under Rule 56 and applied summary judgment law |
Key Cases Cited
- Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (exhaustion/pleading guidance in FOIA cases)
- Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (treating motions as summary judgment when matters outside pleadings are considered)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (materiality and genuine dispute standards)
- Barouch v. DOJ, 962 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2013) (granting summary judgment where agency showed it did not receive plaintiff’s FOIA request)