Prisology, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5760
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Prisology, a non-profit focused on criminal justice reform, sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) alleging the BOP failed to make certain records electronically available as required by FOIA § 552(a)(2).
- Prisology’s brief complaint listed categories of records (e.g., administrative remedy responses, settlements, compassionate-release decisions, disciplinary reports) and requested a declaratory judgment and injunction under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to compel electronic posting for records created on/after Nov. 1, 1996.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Prisology had not alleged any injury in fact supporting Article III standing.
- The district court dismissed, holding Prisology lacked Article III standing because it alleged no injury to the organization or its members.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, applying Supreme Court standing precedents and explaining Prisology’s allegations amounted only to a generalized public grievance rather than a concrete, particularized injury.
- The court noted related rulings (including this court’s decision in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) about remedies under the APA for alleged § 552(a)(2) violations but declined to reach the APA question because Prisology failed to establish Article III standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — injury in fact | Prisology asserted statutory right to information; any statutory violation is an injury | No allegation of particularized injury; harm is shared with the public | Plaintiff lacks standing; complaint alleges only a generalized public grievance |
| Applicability of APA remedies for alleged § 552(a)(2) violations | Brought suit "pursuant to" the APA seeking injunction/declaratory relief | Government relied on Citizens for Responsibility precedent that APA may not provide such a remedy | Court declined to decide APA question because standing not met; noted Citizens for Responsibility issue may bar APA relief |
| Analogy to FOIA § 552(a)(3) requester-standing | Prisology argued it effectively requested information, so standing should follow § 552(a)(3) cases | Prisology never submitted a FOIA request and received a denial — § 552(a)(3) precedents inapplicable | § 552(a)(3) cases don’t help; requester-standing requires an actual request and denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (Article III standing is a threshold jurisdictional requirement)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (court addressed availability of APA relief for § 552(a)(2) claims)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (FOIA requester need only show they sought and were denied specific records)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (injury-in-fact requirement is a hard floor even when statutes create rights)
- Zivotofsky ex rel. Ari Z. v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 614 (requester-standing under FOIA § 552(a)(3): denial of specific records confers standing)
- Irons v. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608 (discussing enforceability of § 552(a)(2) disclosures when requested)
- American Mail Line, Ltd. v. Gulick, 411 F.2d 696 (plaintiff articulated particularized injury tied to denial of access to § 552(a)(2) material)