Scott v. Conley
937 F. Supp. 2d 60
D.D.C.2013Background
- Alan Scott is a former federal prisoner with about 23 convictions for fraud, identity theft, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and making false statements to banks.
- Scott was transferred to a Communication Management Unit (CMU) at FCI Terre Haute, where staff monitor communications under the CTU; CMU is claimed to impose heightened controls on contact with the community.
- Scott filed a civil action against BOP officials for alleged First and Fifth Amendment violations and privacy violations, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
- Defendants include BOP officials in their individual capacities; prior motions to dismiss were denied or granted in part, with Bivens claims previously deemed moot but revived on reconsideration.
- The court revived Scott’s Bivens claims but ultimately dismissed them on jurisdictional and immunity grounds; Privacy Act claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim or other deficiencies.
- The court also addressed service issues and the status of unnamed “John Doe” defendants, ultimately dismissing those claims and deciding the remaining defendants qualified immunity applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration revived the Bivens claims | Scott argues his monetary damages claim survives after his release | Defendants contend mootness persisted for monetary claims | Bivens claims revived but dismissed on other grounds. |
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Schultz, Jett, Lockett, and Cozza-Rhodes | Scott alleges minimum contacts with DC | Defendants lacking DC domicile or sufficient contacts | Lack of personal jurisdiction; claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether service was proper on Conley and Smith | Service improperly effected via DC office | Service defective | Service on Conley and Smith ineffective; claims dismissed. |
| Whether John Doe defendants may be pursued | Discovery will identify John Doe defendants | John Doe identities may be revealed through discovery | John Doe claims dismissed; substitution unlikely given qualified immunity. |
| Whether Privacy Act claims survive, including e(1), e(7), and b | BOP maintained excessive or improper records affecting rights | Records exempt or properly maintained for law enforcement; injuries not shown | Privacy Act claims dismissed for lack of adverse effects or improper relief and for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulation scrutiny under Turner factors)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (prison regulation validity under Turner test)
- Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (prison associations rights constrained by penological interests)
- Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (U.S. 1977) (associational rights curbed by confinement realities)
- Haase v. Sessions, 893 F.2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (equitable relief for e(7) violations may be available; injunctive relief considerations)