Pinson v. United States Department of Justice
243 F. Supp. 3d 74
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jeremy Pinson (identified with feminine pronouns in the record) filed FOIA requests to DOJ seeking communications from the Attorney General to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP); responsive records included two Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) memoranda (2009, 2010).
- SAMs detail special confinement conditions for inmates deemed to pose serious safety risks and include narrative descriptions of offense conduct, investigation details, and SAM terms.
- DOJ initially withheld the memoranda in full; after prior litigation and reprocessing the BOP released the memoranda in redacted form and invoked FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F) for various redactions.
- The district court previously found the memoranda are law-enforcement records for Exemption 7 purposes and denied earlier DOJ summary judgment on some withholdings; DOJ sought renewed summary judgment on the remaining redactions.
- The main contested issues before the court were whether BOP properly applied Exemptions 7(E) (techniques/procedures), 7(C) (personal privacy), and whether all reasonably segregable non-exempt material was released.
- The Court granted DOJ summary judgment, holding that Exemptions 7(E) and 7(C) justified the challenged redactions and that segregable material was released.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Exemption 7(E) to redact investigation techniques and offense details in 2010 SAM memo | Redactions of names/locations exceed allowed scope; some facts are public | Release would disclose non-public investigative techniques (chemicals, search locations, items seized, witness IDs) and risk circumvention | Granted: 7(E) properly applied to withhold detailed investigative techniques and chemical-agent information |
| Use of Exemption 7(C) to withhold identities and identifying details | Public interest in information about "murderers and terrorists" outweighs privacy; some details already public | Names, housing, procedural history, and other details would invade privacy and risk identifying rare SAM subjects; requester does not show compelling evidence of agency illegality or a significant public-interest purpose | Granted: 7(C) properly applied to withhold names, co-defendant/third-party identities, housing/location/management and other identifying details |
| Whether withheld material was reasonably segregable | (Argued indirectly) Redactions too broad; more could be released | BOP reviewed files, released all non-exempt material, and provided a detailed declaration explaining non-segregability | Granted: agency satisfied segregability obligations; released majority of content with limited redactions |
| Threshold: whether records are law-enforcement records under Exemption 7 | Implied challenge previously litigated | SAMs are related to BOP law-enforcement/security duties and thus fall under Exemption 7 | Previously resolved in favor of DOJ; court relies on that finding here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (establishes that disclosure is FOIA’s dominant objective)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (limits public-interest inquiry to shedding light on government operations)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (agency bears substantial burden to justify exemptions; Vaughn requirement context)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (low bar for 7(E) justifications)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (privacy interest analysis under Exemption 7(C))
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (names of private individuals in 7(C) files are categorically exempt absent compelling evidence of agency illegality)
- Prison Legal News v. Samuels, 787 F.3d 1142 (Exemption 7(C) is more protective of privacy than Exemption 6)
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (segregability obligation and standards for agency declarations)