1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

___________________________________ ) J OHN DA STA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ il A c tio n N o. 08 -1 03 4 ( EG S) ) HARL EY G. LAPPI

N, Dire ctor, ) F e de ra l B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns , ) ) De fe nd ant. )

___________________________________ )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the Court on the pa rties’ c ross-motions for summary judgme nt. For the re a so ns dis c us se d b e low , th e Court wi ll gra nt s umm ary

jud g me nt f

or de fe nd ant. I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff, a fe dera l prisoner, submitted to the Direc tor of the F eder al B urea u of Prisons (“B OP”) a

reque st under the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , see5 U.S.C. § 552, for the following information: 1. ADDEN DUM TO THE FOO D POL I CY 4700.05 FOR THE CHOI CES OF MENUS EI THER 1 , 2 , OR 3 FOR THE N ATI ONAL FOO D SERVI

NG THAT B EGAN JAN. 06, 08 2
. TH E MEM O TO F C I E L K T O N E X P L A I N I N G H O W T O C H OO SE MENUS 1, 2 OR 3 FO RTHE NAT I ONAL FOO D SERVI

NG THA T STARTED J AN. 06, 08. Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J ., Ex . 1 (January 24, 2008 Fr eedom of

Information/Privacy

Act Re qu e st) (c a

pit a l le tte rs in o ri g ina l) ; seeCompl. ¶ 1. Accor ding to plaintiff, a s of the filingofThe proper defenda nt to a FOIA action is the fe dera l gove rnment ag ency , not 1 it s D ir e c to r. S

ee5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ) (grantinga fe dera l district court “jurisdiction to enjoin the agenc yfrom withholding a g ency rec ords and to orde r the pr od uc tio n o f a

ny agency

re c or ds imp ro pe rl y

wi thh e ld f

ro m th e c omp la ina

nt) (e mph a sis a dd e d)
. Ac c or din g ly , the Court wi ll dis mis s Ha rl e y L a ppin as a p art

y defe ndant. Se e, e .g., Pr iso n Le ga l Ne ws v . La

pp in , 436 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 7, 22 (D .D .C. 2006) (c oncludingthat “the B OP, despite its status as a component a gen cy of the DO J, is a pr op e r d e fe nd ant i n th is F OIA a c tio n” ); W hit tlev . M os c he lla , 756 F. Supp. 5 8 9 , 5 9 6 (D
. D. C
. 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i n g Petrus v. Bowen , 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)) (holding that the Court’s jurisdiction is “limi ted to enjoining a g ency noncompliance , § 55 2( a )( 4) (B ), and c on se qu e ntl y no [F OIA] c la im may be a sse rt e d . . . agai ns t individual feder al offic ials”) 2 his complaint in J une 2008, he “ ha[d] not had a r esponse f rom [BOP]” to his reque st. Compl . ¶ 6. In this action, which the Court construe s as a c ivil action ag ainst the BO P under the F OIA, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ), plaintiff ha s demande d a dec laratory judgme nt, an orde r direc ting the BO P to produce the r equeste d rec ords, and r eimbursement of costs incurre d in this action. Id. ¶ 1 9. T h e B O P r e c e i v e d p l a i n t i f f ’ s F O IAr e qu e s to nF e b r

u a r y 6 , 2 0 0 8 , an d

a s s i g n e d i tF O IA Request No. 08-03833. D ef.’ s Mem. of P. & A . (“D ef.’ s Mot.”), De clar ation of Monica PotterJohn so n ( “ Potte r- John so n D e c l.” ) ¶ 3 & Ex. A . A lth ou g h B OP s ta ff ide nti fi e d n o a dd e nd a

to Prog ram Statement 4700.05, F ood Service Manual, the c urre nt version of whic h is dated June 12, 2006, staff loc ated a

“memora ndum titl ed National

Menu I mpleme ntation Procedures ,” a c opy of which had be en “f

orwa rded to a ll W arde ns.” Potter-Johnson Decl. ¶ 4-5. O n J une 24, 2008, BO P sent plaintiff “a c opy of the memora

ndum titl ed National

Menu I mpleme ntation Procedure

s .” Id. ¶ 6. I I . DI SCUS SI ON The B OP moves for summary judgme nt on the g round that it alrea dy has re lease d3

unreda cted c opies of the r equeste d rec ords, re nderingthe ca se moot. SeeDef .’s Mot. at 5-6. Pla int if f c ounte rs that he is e nti tle d to summa ry jud g me nt b e c a

us e the B OP f

a ile d to
a c kn ow le dg e re c e ipt

of and re sp on d to his re qu e sts tim e ly in a c c or da

nc e wi th 5 U. S.C. §552(a) (6)( A)(i)
. SeePl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J . at 2-3. Only afte r he f iled this civil action did the BO P relea se the re quested re cords. Id. at 3. For this reason, plaintiff de mands an a war d of costs to cove r the portion of the court’s f iling fe e paid to date and photocopies. Id. A. Su mm ar

yJ ud gm e nt S tan da rd Th e Court

may g ra nt a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt i f t

he ple a din g s, de po sit ion s,
answe rs to interrog atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with af fidavits or dec larations, show that there is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movingparty bear s the burden of

demonstratingthe absenc e of a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Ce lote

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). F a c tua l a sse rt ion s in

the mov ing

pa rt y ’s a ff ida vit s o r d e c lara

tio ns may be a c c e pte d a s tr

ue un le ss the opposing party

submits hi s own aff

idavits or decla

rations or doc umentary

evidenc e to the contra ry . Ne al v . Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). In a F OIA ca se, the Court may g rant summary

judgme nt based on the infor mation pr ov ide d in

a ff ida vit s o r d e c laratio ns wh e n th e a ff ida vit s o r d e c lara

tio ns de sc ri be “ the do c ume nts and the justifications for

nondisclosure with re asonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by either c ontrary

evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Mi lit

ar yAu dit Project v. Casey , 6 56 F .2 d 7 24 , 7 38 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) ; see also He rtzberg v. Vene man , 273 F.Supp.2d 67, 74 (D.D .C. 2003). Such aff idavits or decla

rations ar e ac corde d “a pr esumption of4

g ood faith, which c annot be r ebutted by ‘pure ly speculative claims about the e x istence a nd discovera bility of other doc uments.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. Sec . &Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F.2d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 0 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Ground Sauce r W atch, Inc . v. Central IntelligenceAgenc y , 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)). B. The BOP’s Compliancewith t he FOI A Under the FO I A, fe dera l jurisdiction is depende nt upon a showingthat the ag ency has withheld ag ency

rec ords improperly
. See5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ) (statingthat the district court “has jurisdiction to enjoin the ag ency from withholding a g ency rec ords and to orde r the pr od uc tio n o f a

ny a g e nc y re c or ds imp ro pe rl y

wi thh e ld f

ro m th e c omp la ina

nt” ); Kissi nger v. Re po rte rs C om m. for Fr e e do m o

f th e Pr ess , 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980). “O nce the rec ords ar e produce d[,] the substance of the c ontroversy disappea rs and be comes moot since the disc losure which the suit seeks ha s alrea dy been ma de.” Crooker v. U nited States State Dep’t , 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (pe r cur iam). Her e, def endant e stablishes that the BO P has relea sed in full the re cords plaintiff reque sted. Absent any

showing by

plaintiff to the contra

ry , this matter is moot. See, e .g., Isasi v. Office of Attorney Ge neral , 594 F. Supp. 2d 12, 14 (D.D .C. 2009) (dismissing a F OIA ac tion as moot where there was no dispute that the r equeste d rec ords had be en re lease d without any
re da c tio ns ); W

est v. Spe llings , 539 F. Supp. 2d 55, 61 (D.D .C. 2008) (dismissing Count Iof the Complaint as moot “because [t he ag ency] release d the re cords r equeste d”). “ [H] oweve r fitful or delayed the r elea se of infor mation under the F OIA may be, once all reque sted rec ords ar e
surre ndere d, fede ral c ourts have no f urther statutory

function to perf

orm.” Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 ( D.C. Cir. 1982).5 C. P lai nti ff’ s D e ma nd

for Cos ts Release of the re quested re cords doe s not resolve the matter of plaintiff’ s demand for costs. The Court may

“asse ss ag ainst the United States re asonable attorney fee s and other lit ig atio n c os ts r e a so na

bly inc ur re d in any c a se . . . in

wh ic h th e [pla int if

f] h a s su bs tanti a lly preva iled.” ” 5 U .S.C. § 552(a)(4) (E)( i). A plaintiff substantially preva ils if he “has obta ined relief throug h either . . . a

judicial order , or an e nforc eable written agree ment or conse nt decr ee[,] or . . . a voluntar

y or unilatera l chang e in position by the ag ency , if the complaina nt’s claim is not ins ub sta nti a l.” 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( a )( 4) (E )( ii) . T he de c isi on to a wa rd atto rn e y s’ fe e s a

nd c os ts i s left to the Court’s discre tion. See Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v . Sampson , 559 F.2d 704, 705- 06 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (c ommenting that the Sec tion 552(a)( 4)(E) “conte mplates a re asoned
e xer c ise of

the c ourt s’ dis c re tio n ta

kin gint o a c c ount a ll r e le va nt f a c tor s” ). In ma

kin gthi s decision, the Court consider s “(1) the public bene fit derived f rom the ca se; (2) the commerc ial benef it to the plaintiff; (3) the natur e of the plaintiff’s intere st in the recor ds; and (4) the
rea sonablene ss of the ag ency ’s withholding of the re quested doc uments.” Davy v. Central IntelligenceAgenc

y , 5 50 F .3 d 1 15 5, 11 59 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 8) (c itatio ns omi tte d) . “No on e fa c tor is dis po sit ive , a lth ou g h th e [C]our t w ill no t a sse ss f

e e s w he n th e a g e nc y

ha s d e mon str ate d th at it had a la wful rig ht to withhold di sclosure.” Id. Th e B OP d oe s n ot d isp ute pla int if f’ s a sse rt ion

that it fa ile d to “ de te rm ine wi thi n 2 0 d ay s . . . afte r the re ceipt of [plaintiff’s] request whe ther to comply with such reque st and . . . imm e diate ly

no tif y [pla int if f] .
. . of su c h d e te rm inatio n a

nd the re a so ns the re fo re .” 5 U .S. C. §552(a) (6)( A)(i) . I ts supporting de clar ation does not explain the delay betwee n its rece ipt of plaintiff’s re quest and its rele ase of the re quested infor

mation, and the Court ca

nnot determine on6

this recor d whether

the B OP’s actions we re r easona ble. I t appea

rs that the B OP relea sed the reque sted rec ords only

afte r plaintiff filed this ac tion, and plaintiff thus demonstrates that he

“ ob ta ine d r e lie f t

hr ou g h .
. . a

vo luntary

or un ilate ra l c ha

ng e in p os iti on

by the a g e nc y .” 5 U .S. C. § 5 52 (a )( 4) (E )( ii) . T he fl aw i n p la int if f’ s p os iti on , h ow e ve r, is i ts f a ilure to s ho w that hi s “ c la im is not insubs tantial.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)( E)(ii). Pla int if f’ s inte re st i n a

nd int e nd e d u se of

the inf or matio n a pp e ars to b e pe rs on a l. T his is not a ca se whe re the public derive s some benef it from plaintiff’s cla im or the BO P’s relea se of the information plaintiff r equeste d. See Davy v. Central IntelligenceAgenc y , 550 F.3d at 1159 (findingthat the public bene fit derived f rom the plaintiff’s F OIA re quest and subseque nt litigation, which “ wer e intended to c ompel disclosure of inf ormation relating to the a ctivities of [the CIA] in

re latio n to a

signif ic ant h ist or ic a l e ve nt, ” wa s a fa c tor fa vo ri ngthe pla int if

f’ s r e qu e st fo r f e e s and c os ts) ; Judicial W

atch, Inc . v. Bureau of Land Mgmt ., 562 F. Supp. 2d 159, 172-74 (D .D .C. 20 08 ) ( fi nd ingthat no t- fo r- pr of it o rg anizatio n’ s c la im w a s su bs tanti a l, b e c a

us e it “attempted to e x pose the pre cise c onnection betwe en thre e hig h-ra nking e lected of

ficials and r eal estate de veloper

[as such information] surely would aide individuals in making ” a political choice ” and be cause its “sole g oal . . . was to investig ate potential of ficial misconduct” ). The Court concludes that an awa rd of c osts in thi s case is not warra nted. I I I . CONCLUSI ON The Court conc ludes that the B OP has fulfilled its obligations under the FO I A by rele asingall of the infor

mation plaintiff reque sted. In addition, the Court concludes that pla int if f’ s c la im i s in su

bs tanti a l and

de nie s h is d e mand

fo r c os ts. Ac c or din g ly , th e Court g ra nts defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt and denies pla intiff’s motion for summary judgme nt.7

An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.
Signed: EMMET G. SUL L I VAN

Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: September 25, 2009