847 F.Supp.2d 75
D.D.C.2012Background
- Sieverding v. DOJ arises under Privacy Act claims; amended complaint challenged handling of records in JABS/PTS and related agencies.
- Court previously adjudicated related Sieverding V; also imposed filing restrictions against the Sieverdings for abusive litigation.
- Court notes lack of standing for David to sue on Kay’s behalf; proceeding against Kay only.
- Many Privacy Act claims concern JABS/PTS records and alleged failures to exempt or properly use records.
- Court grants in part DOJ’s motion to dismiss or for partial summary judgment; denies Sieverding’s partial summary judgment and miscellaneous motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether many Privacy Act claims are barred by res judicata. | Sieverding argues ongoing violations based on records. | Claims barred due to final Sieverding V judgment. | Partially barred; some claims survive if based on later records. |
| Whether JABS/PTS exemptions and notice requirements shield DOJ from Privacy Act claims. | Records violated §§ 552a(e)(1)-(e)(11). | Systems exempt under § 552a(j)(2) and proper notices exist. | Most claims rejected; exemptions/applications upheld. |
| Whether the Privacy Act claims about social security number and record accuracy are actionable. | SSA number used erroneously; records inaccurate. | Cited provision misread; no actionable inaccuracy. | Claims lacking merit; rejected. |
| Whether the requests for injunctive relief and expungement are warranted. | Requests expungement of JDIS/JABS. | No adverse effect shown; no basis for expungement. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment)
- I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (explains claim vs. issue preclusion)