Pinson v. United States Department of Justice
245 F. Supp. 3d 225
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Jeremy Pinson, a pro se federal inmate, submitted multiple FOIA requests to DOJ/FBI seeking investigatory records (e.g., interviews, gang investigations, FD-302s, address directories, and letters to wardens).
- DOJ released some records with redactions, asked Pinson to clarify certain broad requests, and directed her to public materials on the FBI’s Vault for some topics.
- The district court previously granted/denied parts of DOJ’s first summary-judgment motion; this opinion addresses DOJ’s second motion covering the remaining requests.
- The FBI relied on searches of the Central Records System (CRS), referrals to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and public Vault materials; DOJ invoked FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(D) for withholdings.
- The Court found most FBI searches adequate and most withholdings proper, but denied summary judgment as to (1) adequacy of the search for Request No. 1199202 (Mexican Mafia), (2) adequacy/details of the FBI→BOP referral for the assault records, (3) whether two unnumbered requests (FD-302s for Victorville homicides and letters to wardens) were too vague, and (4) DOJ’s justification for invoking Exemption 7(A) for records of an FBI interview (Request No. 1229060).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search for Request No. 1199202 (Mexican Mafia) | Pinson says she received no response and expected more/different records | FBI pointed to public Vault pages and asserted those satisfied the request | Denied for summary judgment: DOJ failed to show a search reasonably calculated to find all responsive records (Vault referral insufficiently explained) |
| Adequacy of FBI search for other contested numbered requests (1178465, 1199194, 1229060) | Pinson objects to redactions/missing handwritten notes and scope of documents | FBI detailed CRS searches, re-sent correspondence, and reprocessed some Vault material for release | Granted for 1178465, 1199194, 1229060 as to search adequacy (searches of CRS and Vault reprocessing adequate), except some exemption justifications vary |
| Referral to BOP for assault-investigation request (2007–08 assaults) | Pinson contests sufficiency of processing and notification | DOJ says it referred to BOP and BOP processed/released/withheld pages under exemptions | Denied: agency must show details of referral processing; FBI not absolved by referral and record lacks sufficient detail from BOP |
| Whether unnumbered requests (broad gang materials since 2007; FD-302s Victorville homicides; letters to wardens) were too vague to search | Pinson contends requests were specific enough and that FBI did not properly ask for clarification | DOJ contends requests were overbroad and asked Pinson to clarify; for some requests clarification not provided | Mixed: request for all materials re: California Aryan Brotherhood and Mexican Mafia (broad decade‑long “all documents”) is too vague — granted for DOJ; FD-302s (Victorville homicides) and letters-to-wardens are not shown to be unsearchable on this record — denial for summary judgment on vagueness |
| Exemption claims (3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(A)) | Pinson largely conceded exemptions but contested some redactions and 7(A) reliance | DOJ contends withholdings fall within grand jury secrecy (Exemption 3) and law-enforcement/privacy and confidential-source exemptions (7(C), 7(D)); claims segregability complied | Mostly granted: Exemption 3, 7(C), and 7(D) justifications accepted and segregability met; but DOJ failed to provide adequate justification for invoking Exemption 7(A) for Request No. 1229060 — denial on that point |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show records produced, unidentifiable, or wholly exempt)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (affidavit must be reasonably detailed to support adequacy of search)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (adequate search is one reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir.) (failure to find a single document does not alone render search inadequate)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (FOIA does not require agencies to create new records)
- Landano v. United States, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (standards for express and implied confidentiality under Exemption 7(D))
- Fund for Constitutional Gov't v. Nat'l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir.) (scope of grand-jury secrecy for Exemption 3)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (public interest in FOIA measured by citizens’ right to know what government is up to)