Pinson v. United States Department of Justice
273 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Jeremy Pinson sues the United States Department of Justice and others over FOIA requests and alleged retaliation for First Amendment activity.
- The court previously addressed Pinson’s FOIA requests and appointed pro bono counsel for reviewed correspondence; the appointment later expanded to include claims against Dignam and Samuels.
- Pinson filed numerous motions (six related to access to the courts) alleging impairments to legal research, law library access, and notices related to court access.
- The court found Pinson’s FOIA and access-to-courts claims not to be complex and concluded she could proceed pro se; the court declined to appoint additional counsel for FOIA matters and denied related relief.
- The court treated several of Pinson’s access-related motions as potentially moot due to Pinson’s transfers between facilities and the current placement at FMC Rochester; the court noted deference to prison administration in transfer decisions.
- The court denied Pinson’s motions for enjoinment of transfers, sanctions, supplemental complaints, and other relief, and separately granted the sealing of a DOJ opposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pinson’s motion to modify appointment of counsel should be granted | Pinson seeks full representation for FOIA litigation. | Counsel appointment not warranted given complexity and lack of need for counsel. | Denied |
| Whether Pinson's access-to-the-courts claims are moot or actionable | Pinson asserts ongoing injury to court access due to BOP actions. | Transfers render claims moot; no actual injury shown. | Claims denied; not proven injury; mootness concerns noted |
| Whether Pinson is entitled to a protective order or TRO against transfers | Transfers and conditions hinder access to writing materials and courts. | Prison transfers are within penological discretion; no clear irreparable harm shown. | Denied |
| Whether sanctions against defendants' counsel are warranted under Rule 11 | DOJ attorneys misstated Pinson’s location and mishandled concerns about access. | No bad faith; misstatement was immaterial and not a Rule 11 violation. | Denied |
| Whether Pinson may file a supplemental complaint under Rule 15(d) | New retaliation claims related to solitary confinement should be included. | Counsel represents Pinson on these issues; pro se filings while represented are inappropriate. | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. FBI, 274 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (indigent counsel not guaranteed; court controls appointment discretion)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court 1996) (actual injury required for access-to-courts claims; not mere subpar facilities)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court 1977) (prison authorities must assist with meaningful legal papers)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (preliminary injunction standard and irreparable harm framework)
- Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (preliminary injunction factors must be weighed; national interest considerations)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (sliding-scale approach for preliminary injunctions; weight of factors varies)
- Scott v. District of Columbia, 139 F.3d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (mootness and transfer considerations in prison-related claims)