Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01923/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01923-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The more appropriate request is under the Privacy Act in that § 552a requires an agency 1

to give an individual access to his own records. The court understands the response of the

Department of Justice to have encompassed both the FOIA and the Privacy Act.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GARVEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-03-1923 LKK GGH P

vs.

U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, 

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Introduction and Summary

In this action brought pursuant to the Freedom Of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §

552, and possibly § 552a (the Privacy Act), see Exhibit B to the Complaint, and which has been 1

transferred several times before ultimately residing with the undersigned, plaintiff Garvey seeks

records relating to his alleged extradition from Romania in or about October 2000. Plaintiff had

fled California after sex offense charges had been filed against him. Plaintiff believes his

“extradition,” pled also in this court as an actual “kidnapping,” see January 9, 2003 FOIA request

at 4 was, or should have been, accompanied by documents. These documents would show,

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Unauthorized Flight to Avoid Prosecution, 18 U.S.C. § 1073. Although actual 2

prosecutions under this statute must be approved by DOJ, the issuance of a warrant requires no

such approval, and the vast majority of UFAPs are dismissed when the fugitive is handed over to

state authorities.

2

according to plaintiff, that his extradition was accomplished unlawfully so as to nullify, or

otherwise show the unlawfulness of, his criminal conviction suffered when he was returned to

the United States.

The United States (DOJ) counters that plaintiff was never formally extradited. 

Rather, after the local agency was informed that extradition was problematic because of the

nature of the offenses alleged in light of the pertinent extradition treaty, the local agency obtained

the assistance of the FBI in acquiring a UFAP warrant from the Central District of California, 2

which in turn caused the State Department to revoke plaintiff’s passport, which then in turn

caused the Romanian authorities to deport plaintiff. No extradition having taken place, it is not

surprising that no documents related to extradition were found.

In this summary judgment, for the most part, plaintiff mistakes argument for the

presentation of factual support to raise an issue of fact. He presents only a few snippets of

documents, but has not submitted a declaration with respect to any of the facts/argument that he

makes. Moreover, his sometimes allegations about kidnapping (without specifics), then

extradition, then how he was never placed before any Romanian officials regarding extradition,

and then uncertainty as to how he was returned to this country, bespeak a lack of good faith on

plaintiff’s part in his contesting a “no documents” finding by the Department of Justice in this

FOIA/Privacy Act case. The undersigned has no substantial doubt about the adequacy of the

search, and finds no legitimate inference of fact to be drawn in plaintiff’s favor regarding the

adequacy of the search, which would permit this court to deny summary judgment.

Standards for Summary Judgment on a FOIA/Privacy Act Case

Summary judgment in FOIA cases utilize a somewhat different standard than in

ordinary civil cases:

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all

FOIA cases are resolved.” Mace v. EEOC, 37 F.Supp.2d 1144,

1146 (E.D.Miss.1999). “Courts are permitted to rule on summary

judgment in FOIA cases solely on the basis of government

affidavits.” Lion Raisins, Inc. v. USDA, 354 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th

Cir.2004). FN9

FN9. The well-known standard for summary judgment, however, is

not germane to a FOIA proceeding. “Unlike the typical summary

judgment analysis, in a FOIA case, we do not ask whether there is

a genuine issue of material fact, because the facts are rarely in

dispute.” Minier, 88 F.3d at 800; see also Fiduccia v. United States

DOJ, 185 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.1999) (“Though this is review

of a summary judgment, our review in a FOIA summary judgment

case is not simply de novo, nor do we ask whether there is a

genuine issue of fact in most cases. Instead, in a FOIA case, we

first determine whether the district judge had an adequate factual

basis for decision, and if not, remand.”); see, e.g., Heeney v. FDA,

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23365 (C.D.Cal., Mar. 11, 1999) (“[T]he

real question before the court on these cross-motions for summary

judgment is the adequacy of the Vaughn indices prepared by the

FDA and Boston Scientific, and whether they support withholding

information under one of the FOIA exemptions.”).

National Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Dept. Of Defense, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1094(C.D.

Cal. 2005)

The facts related in the McIntyre Declaration are not directly in dispute. That is,

plaintiff does not, and realistically cannot, challenge the facts concerning when and where DOJ

personnel searched for plaintiff’s records. Rather, plaintiff attempts to persuade the court that

matters collateral to the search regarding plaintiff’s return to this country should give rise to an

inference that the DOJ search was faulty. The district court must determine whether plaintiff’s

“evidence” leaves substantial doubt as to the adequacy of the search.

“An agency fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate

beyond material doubt that its search was ‘reasonably calculated to

uncover all relevant documents.’ ” Valencia-Lucena v. United

States Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C.Cir.1999) (quoting

Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C.Cir.1990)); see

Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 27

(D.C.Cir.1998) (FOIA requires agency to conduct search using

methods reasonably expected to produce requested information).

The agency bears the burden of showing that its search was

calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Steinberg v. United

States Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 See Citizen’s Commission on Civil Rights, 45 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1995) citing 3

Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985) ((“The agency must: demonstrate that it has

conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” (quotations

omitted)). Despite CCHR’s arguments about the missing volumes, “the issue to be resolved is

not whether there might exist any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather

whether the search for those documents was adequate.” Id. (quotation omitted).

4

To meet its burden, the agency may submit affidavits or

declarations that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method

of the agency’s search. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121

(D.C.Cir.1982). In the absence of contrary evidence, such

affidavits or declarations are sufficient to demonstrate an agency’s

compliance with the FOIA. Id. at 127. If the record “leaves

substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the search, summary

judgment for the agency is not proper.” Truitt v. Dep’t of State,

897 F.2d at 542.

Wilson v. DEA, 370 F. Supp. 2d 282, 285 (D.D.C. 2005) (emphasis added).

This succinctly stated standard mirrors the Ninth Circuit standards set forth concerning the

adequacy of the FOIA search, and adds the standard by which the adequacy is judged in a FOIA 3

summary judgment procedure. And again, the issue is not, as plaintiff believes, whether his

proof demonstrates the possibility that other responsive documents exist, but whether the search

for his requested documents was adequate. See footnote 3.

Finally, the standards governing Privacy Act searches are the same as those for

FOIA. See Hill v. U.S. Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067, 1069 (n.4) (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Facts

First, the undisputed logistical facts regarding the search made are set forth. 

Plaintiff argues against these facts, but presents no direct evidence that they are untrue. Whether

plaintiff presents admissible facts from which an inference of inadequacy of search can be drawn

are related afterwards.

State of California criminal charges were filed against plaintiff in three counties

all alleging sexual offenses with minors. As of 1999, plaintiff was a fugitive on these charges. 

Plaintiff traveled/fled to Romania. Plaintiff was returned to this country and was ultimately

convicted on some charges. 

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 A request for “all Romanian law available” does not appear to be cognizable under any 4

FOIA provision. Documents requesting policies, practices and so forth, unless required to be

published in the Federal Register, need only be made available for copying to a requestor. No

agency must continually copy for requestors at taxpayer expense its entire internal libraries.

5

On January 9, 2003, plaintiff made a FOIA request to the Criminal Division of the

United States Department of Justice (and a Privacy Act request thereby) regarding the “Office of

International Affairs.” In that request, plaintiff argued his facts, referenced previous FOIA

requests, and ultimately sought:

This request is for the international extradition file as described

above, in addition to, but not limited to, the items listed below:

1. International extradition file [for plaintiff]...

2. All communications between the OIA and any domestic or

foreign government...pertaining to the requestor...

3. All U.S. Dept. Of Justice practices, policies, or procedures

pertaining to international extradition and/or deportation and/or

expulsion.

4. All Romanian Law, Both in the Romanian and English

languages, that OIA had access to between July 29, 1999, and

October 27, 2000, inclusive.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, Exhibit D.

According to the first McIntyre declaration, the Criminal Division searched its

centralized records index for any documents referencing plaintiff, and none were found. OIA

personnel also searched the computerized case tracking and management index, but again, no

records pertinent to plaintiff were found. Thomas McIntyre, Chief Freedom of

Information/Privacy Act Unit, responded on May 30, 2003, but only insofar as no records

personal to plaintiff could be found. Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. [Plaintiff and Defendant also fail to

mention in this summary judgment motion and opposition any dispute about Requests 3 and 4. 

The court therefore considers these otherwise problematic requests not to be at issue in this

litigation]. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Office of Information and Policy (OIP). This 4

component of DOJ remanded the matter for a further search. Aside from essentially repeating

the previous search, OIA personnel searched other potential locations and computers in the

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The undersigned has considered this part of the Supplemental McIntyre Declaration 5

because the information discovered was not discovered until after the first declaration was filed. 

However, to the extent that the supplemental declaration beefs up the substance of facts already

contained in the first declaration, it will not be considered. The opportunity afforded by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules to file a reply brief does not include the

opportunity to re-write or supplement declarations whose modified/supplemented facts could or

should have been available when the first declaration was written. It is not fair to the opposing

party to add such facts when the opposing party does not have a chance to respond.

6

office, but to no avail. The OIA attorney (Caruth) who allegedly was involved in discussions

with California state officials about plaintiff was contacted as well. Plaintiff was again informed

that no responsive documents could be found. After suit was filed, one last search was

undertaken, and for preparation of the McIntyre Declaration, the search of OIA files and

computers was yet again pursued with reported negative results.

In footnote 6 of DOJ’s points and authorities, reference was made to yet a further

search commissioned by the AUSA assigned to the case. This search undertaken after the first

McIntyre declaration had been filed, revealed that the OIA attorney (Caruth) who had discussion

with the state prosecutors in Los Angeles had made some personal notes of these phone

conversations. It is not clear from the facts why Caruth was now able to discover her personal

notes while previously, she was not. Despite the personal nature of the notes, i.e., non-agency

documents, in an abundance of caution and with one redaction of an FBI agent’s identity, they

were disclosed to plaintiff. Supplemental McIntyre Declaration. 

5

DOJ has set forth in its undisputed facts the gist of what several documents in

plaintiff’s possession set forth concerning his return from Romania to the United States. 

Plaintiff, although contesting the veracity or completeness of the substance contained in the

documents, does not dispute the fact that the documents per se reveal the following:

Plaintiff’s papers indicate that the Los Angeles County District

Attorney’s office (“LADA”) sought advice from OIA under USAM

§ 9-15.210 in 2000. McIntyre Decl. Exh. 4, Bates pages 29-34. 

Plaintiff’s papers indicate that OIA told LADA that plaintiff was

not extraditable from Romania. Bates Page 34, notation dated 9-

26-00. Plaintiff’s papers indicate that soon afterward, on October

17, 2000, the Central District of California issued a “warrant of

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 However, no rule of the Ninth Circuit requires that plaintiff’s legal argument or 6

conclusionary statements be deemed an admissible fact.

7

arrest for violation of Section 1073 of Title 18 of the United States

Code” (UFAP). Bates page 40. Plaintiff’s papers indicate that as a

consequence, the United States Department of State revoked

plaintiff’s United States passport. Id. Plaintiff’s papers indicate

that on October 27, 2000, plaintiff “was arrested by Romanian

police for violation of Romanian immigration law.” Bates page 38. 

Plaintiff’s papers indicate that he was deported from Romania soon

afterward. Bates page 39.

DOJ Undisputed Fact 5.

Discussion

Plaintiff does not directly contest the manner and mode of DOJ searches per se,

but takes issue with almost every aspect of DOJ’s explanation in order to raise an inference that

DOJ “must” have documents about his removal because DOJ policies require such

documentation to be made. First, plaintiff does not supply a declaration in opposition to

summary judgment setting forth these facts. The court should not have to search the record to

see if there is something otherwise admissible that can substitute for this defect, and the lack of a

declaration is sufficient in and of itself to ignore the inconsistent arguments of plaintiff. Carmen

v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001).

 The undersigned will nevertheless discuss plaintiff’s primary arguments and will

review the file for pertinent facts, including the verified complaint. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 6

F.3d 918, 922-923 (9th Cir. 2004) (tasking the court with such review in pro se cases). Despite

his kidnapping claim made to DOJ officials in the initial FOIA request, an assertion which if true

would probably not be documented by OIA, plaintiff references the United States Attorney’s

Manual to show what should be documented when a federal prosecutor is involved in seeking

extradition or some other means for return of a suspect. Plaintiff does not show that federal

prosecutors were involved with respect to these state charges. All that plaintiff demonstrates is

that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office asked for some advice from OIA, and an

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Again, as noted earlier, DOJ would become involved if a UFAP prosecution were

7

actually to be commenced in court.

 Whether Romanian officials violated their own law in this matter would have no 8

material bearing on the likelihood that DOJ did not perform an adequate search for records. In

any event, the court will not take judicial notice of plaintiff’s partial, unauthenticated submission

of the Romanian Constitution. See Request filed June 14, 2006.

8

attorney for OIA gave that advice. Any paperwork generated by that informal contact, plaintiff

points to a fax from LADA to OIA, is not the type of paperwork which would be placed in a

formal case file. There is every indication that after the informal contact, LADA decided upon

another method of plaintiff’s removal from Romania aside from extradition. As the undersigned

is well aware from having signed numerous FBI UFAP warrants, quite often local law

enforcement will seek the assistance of the FBI in obtaining such a warrant, which is obtained

without any formal assistance of Department of Justice officials in Washington D.C. Although 7

an informal contact with OIA was made in this case by LADA, there is nothing revealed in the

facts to suggest that a Criminal Division or OIA official record would be kept of this informal

query. Certainly, plaintiff’s emphatic and singular, but misperceived, reference to the U.S.

Attorney’s Manual in his opposition does not suggest that the adequacy of the search for

plaintiff’s records was deficient or made in bad faith. Moreover, plaintiff’s on-again-off-again

insistence that he was “extradited” such that other extradition databases should have been

checked fails to recognize that there is no evidence that plaintiff ever went through an extradition

process.

The most logical explanation for how plaintiff arrived in this country from

Romania, and that supported by plaintiff’s documents, and despite plaintiff’s irrelevant attempts

to castigate law enforcement officers for past misdeeds, is that once the Romanian government

was apprised of the existence of the UFAP warrant, plaintiff became persona non grata in

Romania, and he was ordered to be removed. The existence, or lack thereof, of Romanian due

process is not at issue here. And, law enforcement personnel, either state, federal or both were 8

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 If plaintiff’s search had been directed at the FBI, there might well have been some 9

documents concerning plaintiff. However, as the FOIA/Privacy addressed by plaintiff did not

logically indicate that a search should be undertaken at the FBI in addition to the Criminal

Division of the Department of Justice, the court finds no reason to deny summary judgment. 

Even though the FBI is a part of the Department of Justice, it is a huge, quasi-autonomous-infact agency. If plaintiff had desired his request to be directed to the FBI, he should have made

that expressly known. 

9

probably permitted to “accompany” plaintiff on his way out of Romania. Nothing in this logical

explanation would cast substantial doubt on the adequacy of the search performed by the

Criminal Division of the Department of Justice as requested by plaintiff.

9

Nor do the existence of belatedly discovered personal notes cast substantial doubt

on the adequacy of the search. Although it is not clear why Ms. Caruth was not able to determine

the existence of her personal notes when first asked, the fact remains that she was asked, and

asked again prior to the notes discovery. Rather than showing a lack of diligence or effort, the

repeated requests demonstrate the opposite. That an individual was initially mistaken about her

personal notes does not demean DOJ’s efforts, nor does it necessarily imply that the efforts were

insufficient. See Nations Mag. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 892, (n.7) (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

Finally, DOJ’s reply brief goes on at some length why redaction of one FBI

agent’s identity from the recently disclosed notes was appropriate under FOIA. The redaction, of

course, could not have been made an issue by plaintiff when the suit was brought, or by DOJ

when the motion for summary judgment was filed, because the existence of the notes was

unknown. Nevertheless, the court will not undertake an ex parte analysis of the redaction

validity. Plaintiff has had months to query the court about making an objection to this redaction,

but he has not done so. The only fair inference to be drawn is that plaintiff does not care to avail

himself of such an opportunity either because the agent’s identity would be of little value to

plaintiff, or that he already is aware of the identity due to interactions with the agent during or

upon plaintiff’s return to this country.

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

As the only focus of this FOIA action is the adequacy of DOJ’s search for records, the 10

undersigned has expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of plaintiff’s removal from

Romania. 

10

Conclusion

The undersigned has no substantial doubt, indeed, no doubt, about the legal

adequacy of DOJ’s FOIA search. Even if the standard on this summary judgment were the

existence of a material fact which would require an evidentiary hearing, no such material fact has

been raised concerning the adequacy of DOJ’s search.10

ACCORDINGLY, defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed May 24,

2006, should be granted, and judgment awarded to defendant.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 3/5/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh:035

garv1923.sj

Case 2:03-cv-01923-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 03/05/07 Page 10 of 10