Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-93-35835/USCOURTS-ca9-93-35835-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

ORICINA L FI LED 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 1 7 r~"°5 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

t~.u. COURT t` = _ ` EAW FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

hw 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 93-35835 

D.C. No. CV-93-00682-JAR 

M E M O R A N D U M* 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Oregon 

James A. Redden, District Judge, Presiding 

Submitted on May 4, 1995** 

Portland, Oregon 

Before: BROWNING, REAVLEY***, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges 

McClure appeals the district court's dismissal of 

contempt proceedings against FBI agent Montgomery for failure to 

comply with a state court order to provide McClure with 

documentary evidence in the FBI's possession that McClure claims 

is exculpatory. The district court held that it had no 

jurisdiction to hold a subordinate FBI agent in contempt for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and 

may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except 

as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission 

on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. 

P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit R. 34-4. 

*** Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United StatesgCircuit 

Judge, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Case: 93-35835, 05/17/1995, ID: 2791776, DktEntry: 23, Page 1 of 4
failing to comply with a court order when he was prevented from 

doing so by a valid regulation. We affirm. 

This case is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision 

in Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), and our recent decision in 

In re Boeh, 25 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 1994). Both cases hold that a 

subordinate FBI official may not be held in contempt for failing 

to comply with a court order if a valid regulation prohibits 

compliance. Both cases further hold that the Department of 

Justice may validly promulgate regulations that prohibit 

subordinate officials from supplying evidence without prior 

approval from their superiors. 

On the authority of Touhy and Boeh, we hold that the 

district court correctly held that it could not hold Agent 

Montgomery in contempt for failing to respond to a court order 

when 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 prevented him from doing so. 

McClure argues strenuously that the Department of 

Justice cannot create a regulation that immunizes the FBI from 

turning over exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial. He may 

very well be right. However, we are not holding that the 

Department of Justice had the power to lawfully refuse to turn 

over the evidence McClure seeks. 1 We are only holding that since 

Neither Touhy nor Boeh reached the question of whether 

16.22 creates a form of executive privilege and, if so, whether 

such a regulation exceeds the enabling legislation or the 

Constitution. We have, however, expressed skepticism over whether 

the enabling legislation empowers the Department of Justice to 

-2- 

Case: 93-35835, 05/17/1995, ID: 2791776, DktEntry: 23, Page 2 of 4
, the decision whether or not to comply with the subpoena was not 

Montgomery's, he cannot be held personally in contempt as a means 

of enforcing the FBI's duty to provide the discovery materials. 

As in Touhy, 11[w]e find it unnecessary ... to consider the 

ultimate reach of the authority of the Attorney General to refuse 

to produce at a court's order the government papers in [her] 

possession." 340 U.S. at 467. 

McClure simply pursued the wrong procedure for testing 

the power of the Department of Justice to refuse to produce 

evidence in response to a subpoena. As we suggested in Boeh, the 

state court could have issued its order directly against the 

"proper Department official" having authority to act on behalf of 

the Department or upon the Attorney General herself. 25 F.3d at 

764; see also Touhv, 340 U.S. at 472 (Frankfurter, J., 

concurring). Alternatively, McClure might have filed a separate 

action under the Administrative Procedures Act or sought a writ of 

mandamus to compel the Attorney General or her designee to grant 

permission to Agent Montgomery to comply with the subpoena. Boeh, 

25 F.3d at 764 n.3. 

McClure also argues that even if Agent Montgomery cannot 

be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the order in 

reliance upon 28 C.F.R. § 16.22, he can be held in contempt for 

refusing to follow the regulation. McClure claims that Montgomery 

promulgate regulations arrogating to itself a form of evidentiary 

privilege. See Boeh, 25 F.3d at 767; Id. at 770-772 (Norris, J., 

dissenting). 

-3- 

Case: 93-35835, 05/17/1995, ID: 2791776, DktEntry: 23, Page 3 of 4
never initiated the process for securing permission, as required 

by 28 C.F.R. § 16.22(b). Appellant's Brief at 12. However, he 

points to no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim. In 

its brief, the Government flatly denies the allegation and points 

to portions of the proceedings below that indicate that Montgomery 

asked for, but was denied, permission to comply with the subpoena. 

Appellee's Brief at 7-8. McClure has failed to respond to this 

denial. Therefore, we do not consider the effect Montgomery's 

alleged refusal to seek permission on the propriety of the 

district court's dismissal. 

The district court's order of dismissal is AFFIRMED. 

-4- 

Case: 93-35835, 05/17/1995, ID: 2791776, DktEntry: 23, Page 4 of 4