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

) RICHARD ISASI, ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 06-2222 (RBW) ) P RISCILLA JONE S et al., ) ) De fend ant s. ) ) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff Richard I sasi filed a pro se complaint in this case alleg ing violations of the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, for which he asser ts claims under Bivens v. Six Unk

nown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), ag ainst sever al individual feder al ag ency employ ees who wer e involved in re sponding to his FO I A re quest. The de fe nd ants have fi le d a

mot ion to d ism iss or , in

the a lte rn ativ e , f

or summa ry jud g me nt. B e c a

us e I sasi cannot maintain e ither a F OIA ac tion or a Bi v e ns a c tio n a g a ins t th e ind ivi du a l de fe nd ants , those claims will be dismissed for fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. Moreove r, bec ause I sasi has re ceive d all the documents a nd information to which he is e ntitled under the FOIA, the def

endants’ motion for summar y judgme nt also will be g rante d. I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound In 2003, I sasi made two letter reque sts for documents re lated to his 1995 ext radition proce eding s from Mexico to New Jersey , which commenc ed in 1995. Specific ally , he re quested (1) a copy of the e x tradition warr ant alongwith the supporting a ffidavit and a ll other supporting pa pe rs fi le d w iththe Ne w Je rs e y state a uth or iti e s w hil e he wa s b e inge xtra dit e d f ro m Me xico toPlaintiff filed an opposition and a c ross-motion for par tial summary

judgme nt (at 1 Docke t Entry

53), a motion for summar y judgme nt without ex ception (at Docket Entry 57 and 59), and a supplemental memora

ndum (at Doc ket Entry

60), fr om which the points noted here have be en extracte d. - 2 - New Jersey

on Fe bruar

y 9, 1995, (2) a ll papers f

iled with the United States Marsha l who handled the extradition, and the order for his extradition issued by the Mexican authorities and a lso filed on Fe bruar

y 9, 1995, and (3) any

and all docume nts releva nt to this matter maintaine d by the United States Marsha l involved in this transac tion. SeeDe fe nd ants ’ S tate me nt o f M ate ri a l F a c ts ¶ 1. In 2006, I sasi filed this action, alleg ing that the defe ndants wer e illeg ally withholding
re sp on siv e do c ume nts , a

nd de mand inga

de c laratio n f

ro m th e Court

that hi s Co ns tit

uti on a l r ig hts had bee n violated, an or der c ompelling the r elea se of a ll the ext radition pape rs re quested, a nd $48 milli on in compensatory and punitive damag es, as we ll as a trial by jury
. See Complaint at 4. The de fenda

nts seek to dismiss t he Bi v e ns claims ag ainst the individual defenda nts for fa ilure to s tate a

c la im u po n whic h r e lie f m ay

be g ra nte d, and se e k s umm ary

jud g me nt b e c a

us e there are no g enuine issues of material fa ct and the a g encie s respondingto the FOIA re quests are
e nti tle d ju dg me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw. In o pp os iti on , I sa si a rgue s th at th e de fe nd ants ’ f a ilure to 1 tim e ly fu lf ill his re qu e sts is s uf

fi c ie nt t o d e mon str ate pla int if f’ s e nti tle me nt t o ju dg me nt a s a matter of la

w on the issue of liability . He ba ldly asser ts, in mul tiple filings, that ther e ar e materia l fac ts in ge nuine dispute, but he neve r identifies what they are . Instead, he notes that more than twe nty

documents we re w ithheld under diff ere nt FOIA exemptions wit hout any list of the titles of those documents and points out that ce rtain docume nts ex ecute d by Mexi can- 3 -

a uth or iti e s, a s w e ll a s o the rs , h ave no t be e n p ro du c e d. He argue s th at be c a us e the de fe nd ants failed to produc e all the doc uments he wa s seeking , they are not entitled to summ ary judgme nt. II. Stand ard of Review A Bi v e ns action provide s a re medy wher e a f eder al offic er ha s committed a violation of an individual' s constitutional rights. Servs. Corp. v. M alesko, 53 4 U .S. 61 , 7 0 ( 20 01 ); FDIC v. Mey er, 510 U.S. 471, 485 (1994). A Bi v e ns re me dy , h ow e ve r, is n ot a va ila ble wh e re a

statut e provides a “ compre hensive sy stem to administer public rig hts.” Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223, 228 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ( e n banc ) . The F OIA re prese nts such a statutory scheme
. Johnson v. Exe cutive O

ffice for United States Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777 ( D.C. Cir. 2002). Thus, a plaintiff ca

nnot maintain a Bi v e ns action ag ainst individual feder al offic ers f or an a lleg ed violation of the FO I A. See id. A pro se complainant is entitled to a libera l construction of his pleading s, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and the only proper defe ndant in a F OIA ac tion is a feder al ag ency , Jefferson v . Reno, 12 3 F . Su pp . 2 d 1 , 3 (D .D .C. 20 00 ). Th e re fo re , th e c omp la int in t his
case will be construed to a lleg e F OIA violations ag ainst the Depa rtment of Just ice a

nd the Depa rtment of State, the f

eder al ag encie s that employ ed the named individual defe ndants. Summary judgme nt is permitted only when “ there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and . . . the movingparty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) ; see Ande rson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 47 7 U .S. 24 2, 24 7- 48 (1 98 6) . In a F OIA s uit , a

n a g e nc y is entitled to summary

judgme nt once it bea

rs its burden of de monstrating that no material fa cts are in dispute and that all information that fa lls withi n the class r equeste d either ha s been pr oduced, is unidentifiable, or is exempt from disclosure. Students Against Genocide v . Dep’ t of State, 257- 4 -

F .3 d 8 28 , 8 33 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 1) ; W eisberg v. D ep’t of Justice , 627 F.2d 365, 368 ( D.C. Cir. 19 80 ). To su c c e ssf

ull y c ha lle ng e su c h a

sh ow ing , th e no n- mov ingpa rt y “ mus t se t f

or th s pe c if ic fac ts showing that ther e is a g enuine issue f or trial,” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), with respe ct to the adequa cy of the sea

rch, the applicability

of the e x emptions claimed, or the se g reg ability of the information withheld, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) and (b)
. As pa rt of its sh ow ing , a

n a g e nc y mus t a lso de mon str ate that w he n “ vie wi ngthe fa c ts i n the light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he re qu e ste r, . . . [it ] ‘h a s c on du c te d a se arc h r e a so na

bly c a lc ulate d to
uncover all rele vant documents.” ’ Steinberg v. U nited States Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g W eisberg v. U

nited States Dep't of Justice, 74 5 F .2 d 1 47 6, 14 85 (D .C. Cir. 1984)). The ag ency

must show that it m ade a “g ood faith ef

fort to conduc t a sea

rch f or the reque sted rec ords, using methods which ca n be re asonably

expected to produc e the infor mation reque sted.” Oglesby v . Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990). An “a g ency g ener ally need not ‘ sear ch eve ry

rec ord sy stem,’ . . . but ‘ca nnot limi t its search to only one
rec ord sy stem if there are others that ar e likely to turn up the information re quested.’” Cam pb e ll v. United States De

p't of Justice , 1 6 4 F. 3 d

2 0 , 2 7 -2 8 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68). F urthermor e, the a dequac y of a se arc h is not determined by its results, but by

the method of the sea rch itself, W

eisberg, 745 F.2d at 1485, and a c ourt is guide d in this determination by principles of r easona

bleness, Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68. An ag ency' s failure to find a par ticular document does not unde rmine the de termination that the sea rch w as ade quate. W

ilber v. CIA, 35 5 F .3 d 6 75 , 6 78 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 4) ; Nation Magazine, W ashington Bureau v. United States Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 892 n.7 ( D.C. Cir. 1995). To show that its searc h was re asonable , the ag ency

may submit affidavits or dec larations that ex plain in rea sonable de tail and in a- 5 -

non-conc lusory

fashion the sc ope and me thod of the ag ency' s sear ch. Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In the abse nce of contra ry evidenc e, such a ffidavits or de clar ations
are sufficie nt to demonstrate an a g ency' s compliance with the FOIA. Id. at 127. Wit h respe ct to responsive doc uments located but not re lease d or not rele ased in full, a fede ral a g ency

may meet the standa

rd re quired for

summary judgme nt solely

on the basis of information containe d in affida vits or declar ations provided that they (1) “ descr ibe the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail;” (2) “demonstrate that the information withheld logica lly falls within the claimed e x emption;” and (3) “ar e not controve rted by

either c ontrary

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

bad faith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981). See also King v. Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 217 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). III. Discussion The a g encie s involved in processingI sasi’s FO I A re quests have f iled aff idavits describing the sea rche s conducte d. Although I sasi did not provide the ag encie s with all of his aliases, the ag encie s sear ched a ll known aliases as w ell as the a liases discover ed in the cour se of pr ocessing the re quest. See Me mor and um o f P oints a

nd Autho ri tie s in

Sup po rt of De fe nd ants ’ M oti on

to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary

J udg ment at 8-9. F urthermor e, additional sea rche s
wer e conduc ted for inf

ormation that I sasi did not origina lly reque st, but identified only later, duringthe administrative appe al. See id. at 6-7. The aff idavits also identify

the number of responsive r ecor ds located, a nd justify any information withheld by

citing the statutory
e xemp tio n f

or su c h in fo rm atio n a

nd pr ov idi nga

de sc ri pti on

of the ty pe of inf or matio n w ithhe ld to demonstrate that the w ithheld information logic ally falls within the claimed e x emption. See- 6 -

generally, id. at 9- 26 ; see, e .g., id. at 10 (de scribingthe nature of the spec ific information withheld under spe cific e x emptions for four documents), at 12 (noting that the names of two DrugEnforc ement Administration ag ents wer e withheld), at 16 (descr ibing the dr aft of a diplomatic note that was “ heavily edited, re plete with hand- written commenta ry and int e rl ine atio ns in t

he te xt an d in

the marg ins , a

nd wi th c ro sse d- out te xt” that w a s w ithhe ld a s a pr e -d e c isi on a l dr a ft

do c ume nt) , at 17 (e xpla ini ngthat th e name of a ro bb e ry vic timwa s w ithhe ld
un de r t he e xemp tio n f

or pe rs on a l pr iva c y

), at 18 -1 9 ( no tin gthat na me s o f a n in div idu a l vi c tim and law e nforc ement ag ents wer e withheld under the per sonal privac y

and law- enfor ceme nt exemptions ), and at 23 (explaining that a f ourtee n-pag e dra ft leg al memora ndum was withheld as an inter- or intra- ag ency

memorandum that would not be a vailable by

law to a pa

rty [ot her tha

n the a g e nc y ] in l iti g atio n w iththe a g e nc y ). Th e a ff ida vit s a lso ave r t

hat a ll r e a so na

bly se g re g a ble information has be en segreg ated a nd disclosed. See id. at 27 . I sa si h a s n ot s e t f or th s pe c if ic fa c ts sh ow ingthat th e re is a

g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t in dis pute a s to the a sse rt ion of the se exemptions , and he ha s also not shown that he is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. IV. Conclusion Be cause a Bi v e ns action is not available to provide a r emedy ag ainst individual feder al office rs for a lleg ed violations of the F OIA, those cla ims will be dismissed as to the named defe ndants sued in their individual ca pacities for

failure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. And, bec ause the rec ord, includingthe af fidavits filed by

the ag encie s that have not been disputed f

actua lly by the plaintiff, esta

blishes that the ag encie s involved (1) c onducted
sear ches that were adequate and r easona ble under the circ umstances, ( 2) segreg ated a nd rele ased
a ll s e g re g a

ble inf or matio n, and

(3 ) a de qu ate ly

de sc ri be d a

nd e xpla ine d a ll i nf

or matio n w ithhe ld- 7 -

s o a s t o j u s t i f

y a l l w i th h o l d i n g s a s a

u th o r i z e d un d e r o n e o r m o r e o f th e e nu m e r at e d

F O IA
e x e mp t i o n s , s u m m ar

y j u d g m e n tw i l l b e g r an t e d i nf av o r o f th e d e f e n d an ta g e n c i e s . F i n a l l y, be c a us e the pla int if

f h a s n ot d e mon str ate d th at he is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw, his motion for summary

judgme nt will be denied. A re lated fina l order a ccompa nies this memorandum opinion.

/ s / REGGI E B. WAL TON Da t e: J an u ary

2 7 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge