952 F. Supp. 2d 159
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Gilbert Roman, pro se, sued the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) seeking $7,000,000 for alleged constitutional violations arising from the NRO’s handling of FOIA requests about fMRI/brain-reading technology.
- The Complaint references three FOIA requests: August 16, 1996; May 14, 2009; and October 22, 2009.
- NRO responded to the 1996 request noting some records absent and claiming classification exemptions for others; Roman did not appeal.
- For the May 14, 2009 request, NRO searched NRO-originated records, found no responsive documents, Roman appealed, and NRO affirmed; Roman later litigated the same May 2009 request in the Eastern District of New York and lost on summary judgment.
- For the October 22, 2009 request, NRO produced 412 pages and withheld 37 pages under FOIA exemptions; Roman did not appeal.
- Court granted Roman’s motions to enter evidence but dismissed NRO’s motion to dismiss in part by granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint in full; discovery motions denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of money damages against a federal agency for alleged FOIA/constitutional violations | Roman seeks monetary damages for constitutional violations caused by NRO’s FOIA handling | NRO contends it is immune under sovereign immunity and FOIA provides no monetary damages | Dismissed — federal agency immune from damages; FOIA provides only injunctive relief |
| Whether the May 14, 2009 FOIA claims may be re-litigated here | Roman challenges NRO’s May 2009 response in this action | NRO argues same claims were adjudicated in Eastern District of New York (res judicata/collateral estoppel) | Dismissed — barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for 1996 and 2009 (Oct.) FOIA requests | Roman did not bring FOIA-based claims or seek injunctions; argues constitutional measure of rights | NRO notes Roman did not appeal the 1996 and Oct. 2009 determinations within required 60-day period | Dismissed — Roman failed to exhaust administrative remedies for those requests |
| Whether Complaint states a viable FOIA claim or constitutional remedy | Roman asserts constitutional claims tied to FOIA processing and resists FOIA framing | NRO contends the only statutory remedy is injunctive relief under FOIA and constitutional damages against agency are barred | Dismissed — complaint fails to state a viable claim for relief under FOIA or for monetary constitutional damages |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (federal agencies immune from suit absent waiver)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (sovereign immunity requires explicit waiver)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
- Oglesby v. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (exhaustion of administrative remedies required before FOIA suit)
- Wilbur v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 675 (FOIA exhaustion is mandatory prerequisite to suit)
- Martin v. Dep’t of Justice, 488 F.3d 446 (elements of collateral estoppel)
- Johnson v. Exec. Ofc. for United States Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (FOIA relief limited to injunctive remedies)