937 F.Supp.2d 60
D.D.C.2013Background
- Alan Scott is a former federal prisoner with numerous prior convictions for fraud and identity theft; he was placed in a CMU at FCI Terre Haute after a 2008 conspiracy to commit mail fraud conviction.
- Scott alleges BOP officials violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights by blocking certain mail and communications while incarcerated, seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.
- Scott also alleges Privacy Act violations for maintaining records, disclosing data, and denying access to records.
- The court previously dismissed the Bivens claims as moot due to Scott’s release, and denied resolution on Privacy Act claims pending more information.
- Scott moved for reconsideration of mootness and for relief on Bivens claims; the court revived the Bivens claims but dismissed them on other grounds, and dismissed Privacy Act claims.
- The court ultimately granted reconsideration of the Bivens issue, found lack of personal jurisdiction over several defendants, dismissed John Doe defendants for discovery-related issues, and dismissed Privacy Act claims for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration revived the Bivens claims. | Scott contends monetary damages prevent mootness. | Defendants argued mootness applied to Bivens claims. | Bivens claims revived but later dismissed on other grounds. |
| Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Schultz, Jett, Lockett, and Cozza-Rhodes. | Scott alleges minimum contacts with the District. | Defendants lack DC domicile or long-arm contacts. | No personal jurisdiction; claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether Conley and Smith were properly served and subject to personal jurisdiction. | Service defects due to reliance on Clerk/Marshals; general jurisdiction over DC-based officials possible. | Service improper; lack of personal jurisdiction. | Service defective; jurisdiction not established; claims dismissed. |
| Whether John Doe defendants may remain in the case. | Discovery could identify unknown defendants. | John Doe identities may not be revealed; immunities apply. | John Doe claims dismissed; discovery insufficient to identify remaining defendants. |
| Whether Scott’s Privacy Act claims state a claim under § 552a(e)(1), (e)(7), and (b). | BOP retained records post-release; alleged lack of relevance and adverse effects. | Records exempt or administered with legitimate law enforcement purpose; no adverse effects shown. | Claims dismissed for failure to state a claim; some claims dismissed without prejudice; others require further showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulation analysis using Turner factors for penological interests)
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (U.S. 2006) (Turner-type justification for prison policies involving publications)
- Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (First Amendment rights in prison context require restrained balancing)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework for discretionary official conduct)
- Simpkins v. Dist. of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Bivens damages not barred by sovereign immunity; individual capacity)
- Malesko v. United States, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (Bivens remedies not available against agencies; focus on individual defendants)