Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2012-1872
| D.D.C. | Aug 30, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jeremy Pinson filed FOIA requests to DOJ components (BOP and EOUSA) beginning in 2012; several rounds of motions and prior opinions resolved many disputes but left a few requests outstanding.
- DOJ moved (multiple times) for summary judgment as to remaining EOUSA requests (Nos. 13‑1085 and 12‑1757) and BOP requests (Nos. 2012‑39 and 2013‑1684); some prior rulings denied or reserved judgment based on inadequate declarations or search descriptions.
- Pinson did not timely oppose one BOP summary‑judgment motion; she later moved to vacate/reconsider, claiming she never received the motion or Fox/Neal notice.
- DOJ filed renewed, supplemented declarations clarifying EOUSA search terms and page counts, and submitted Document 69 (BOP request 2013‑1684) for in camera review, asserting Exemption 7(F) protection.
- Pinson also moved for sanctions and a preliminary injunction alleging BOP interference with her access to legal materials, postage, and telephone calls.
- The Court (1) treated the vacatur request as a Rule 54(b) reconsideration and denied it, (2) granted DOJ summary judgment for EOUSA and BOP (upholding 7(F) withholding of Document 69), and (3) denied Pinson’s request for sanctions and preliminary injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to vacate / reconsider May 23, 2018 partial SJ | Pinson: never received DOJ’s motion or Fox/Neal notice, so lacked opportunity to respond; court should vacate | DOJ/BOP: motion mailed with Fox/Neal language; plaintiff acknowledged legal mail and sought enlargement earlier; delay undermines claim | Denied — court treated as Rule 54(b) reconsideration and found Pinson had notice/failed to timely raise non‑receipt; even with response outcome would not change |
| EOUSA Request No. 13‑1085 (Idaho docket) — adequacy of search | Pinson: EOUSA’s earlier filings suggested wrong docket used; search may have been inadequate | DOJ/EOUSA: supplemented declarations show correct docket used and responsive records produced; prior discrepancy was typographical error | Granted — court accepts supplemental declaration; search was reasonably calculated to find responsive documents |
| EOUSA Request No. 12‑1757 (MD Pa. cases) — scope and page discrepancy | Pinson: EOUSA did not clarify whether search included nonpublic records and could not explain 197 vs 200 page discrepancy | DOJ/EOUSA: supplemental declaration shows search covered public and nonpublic records and corrects tabulation explaining the 3‑page discrepancy | Granted — supplemental declaration cures prior deficiencies; all responsive non‑exempt records produced |
| BOP Request No. 2013‑1684 — withholding of Document 69 under Exemption 7(F) | Pinson: previously court had denied 7(F) withholding for that document absent explanation why redaction is insufficient | DOJ/BOP: in camera submission and supplemental declaration explain why redaction would not mitigate reasonable risk to inmate safety; BOP expertise supports nondisclosure | Granted — after in camera review court finds BOP’s explanation logical and plausible; 7(F) applies and entire document may be withheld |
| Preliminary injunction / sanctions — denial of access to courts | Pinson: BOP placed her in SHU, seized certain legal files, restricted stamps and legal calls, so she is being denied access to courts | DOJ/BOP: deny that access to counsel or stamps was prevented; disputes factual basis and notes pro bono counsel is active; plaintiff shows no actual injury | Denied — plaintiff fails to show likelihood of success or actual injury necessary for injunctive relief; conclusory allegations insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (agency must account for responsive documents: produced, unidentifiable, or exempt)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (adequacy standard: search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Aguiar v. DEA, 865 F.3d 730 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (affidavits describing search terms and search scope may support adequacy)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency FOIA exemptions sufficient if rationale is logical or plausible)
- Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 777 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (scope of Exemption 7(F) described as expansive)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing)
- Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (factors for preliminary injunction; likelihood of success and irreparable harm crucial)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (right of access claim requires actual injury to litigating position)