Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03919/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03919-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3919

___________

William D. Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

U. S. Merit Systems Protection *

Board; Farm Credit Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2007

Filed: February 16, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William D. Jones appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his February 24, 2005

complaint for failure to state a claim. Jones requested deletion of certain statements

contained in administrative decisions relating to his request to reopen an appeal of his

1979 termination from the Farm Credit Administration. The United States Merit

Systems Protection Board denied the request, and Jones filed a complaint alleging that

the denial violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. We agree with the district court

Appellate Case: 05-3919 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2007 Entry ID: 3279407
-2-

that the Privacy Act does not apply to Jones’s request, because the statements

accurately reflect administrative decisions. See Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 360-

61 (4th Cir. 1999) (“the Privacy Act does not allow a court to alter records that

accurately reflect an administrative decision, . . . no matter how contestable the

conclusions may be”; proper form of relief is placing concise statement of

disagreement in records); Douglas v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 33

F.3d 784, 785 (7th Cir. 1994) (Privacy Act does not authorize relitigation of substance

of agency decisions; Act permits person to contest accuracy of administrative records,

but supposes “a distinction between ‘records’ and ‘decisions’”); Pellerin v. Veterans

Admin., 790 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[c]ourts have consistently denied

plaintiff’s use of the Privacy Act as a weapon to collaterally attack agency

determinations”; Act allows for amendment of factual or historical errors, but is not

vehicle for amending judgments of federal officials and may not be employed as

“skeleton key” for reopening consideration of unfavorable federal agency decisions).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3919 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2007 Entry ID: 3279407