UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TOMMY ARROWGARP, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 14-1216 (CKK)

:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the 

Alternative for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13]. The motion is unopposed, and for the reasons 

stated below, the motion will be granted.

The plaintiff, a federal prisoner, “was convicted upon Criminal Case No. 2:03-CR-00549-

DB in the United States District Court [for the] District of Utah[.]” Compl. ¶ 1.1

 He had been 

investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(“BIA”), and was prosecuted and convicted for sexual abuse of a minor. See Defs.’ Mem., 

Hardy Decl. ¶ 5; see id., Boseker Decl. ¶ 15. On or about February 12, 2013, the plaintiff 

submitted requests for information to the FBI, the BIA, and the Executive Office for United 

States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), see Compl. ¶¶ 5-8, and he brings this action under the Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, to “compel[] the Defendants to disclose . . . his 

entire record of investigation for the years 2000 and 2012 through and including the present as 

1

 References to the complaint (“Compl.”) are references to the typewritten submission attached to the preprinted 

form titled “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights” received by the clerk of court on June 30, 2014 [ECF No. 1].

1

 
maintained within the system of records administered by all named Defendants,” Compl. ¶ 11. 

The requests were substantially similar, and each sought “all documents and records naming or 

concerning Tommy Dell Arrowgarp for the years 2000 to 2012 as respects Case No. 2:03-CR00549-DB and otherwise in Utah and elsewhere.” Defs.’ Mem., Strayhorn Decl., Ex. 1 

Based on the plaintiff’s mention of the State of Utah and his membership in the Ute 

Indian Tribe located on the Uintah and Ouray reservation in Fort Duschesne, Utah, BIA staff 

determined that responsive records “would likely be maintained in the District III Office of 

Justice Services . . . in the BIA’s Western Regional Office.” Strayhorn Decl. ¶ 3. The matter 

therefore was referred to District III, employees of which “searched the files of the BIA Fort 

Duchesne Police Department in Fort Duchesne, Utah, including the BIA electronic data base of 

law enforcement records [including] police records and detention files,” id. ¶ 4, using the 

plaintiff’s name as the key word for both manual and electronic searches, id. ¶ 7. No responsive 

records were located. Id. The plaintiff’s administrative appeal of this determination to the 

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, see id., Ex. 3, was denied, see id., Ex. 4.

The FBI’s search of its Central Records System, see Hardy Decl. ¶ 7, yielded responsive 

records. The FBI reviewed 171 pages and released 89 pages either in full or in part, having 

withheld certain information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(E), and by the terms of 

a court’s sealing order. Id. ¶ 12. In addition, the FBI referred records to the EOUSA for 

consultation, see id. ¶¶ 12, 18-20, and addressed these matters in conjunction with the plaintiff’s 

February 2013 direct request to the FBI, id. ¶ 17. Of these 83 pages of referred records, relying 

on FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), the FBI released one page to the plaintiff. Id. ¶ 21. Lastly, 

“[f]ollowing consultation with the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central 

Division, it was determined that the document/information that had been sealed and subsequently 

2
withheld” by the FBI “was no longer required to be sealed.” Id. ¶ 22. The FBI released this 

five-page document in part, relying on FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C) and 7(D). Id. Its declarant 

averred that all reasonably segregable information has been released to plaintiff. Id. ¶ 62. 

Although the plaintiff was advised of his right to an administrative appeal, id., apparently he did 

not proceed.

Records responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request to the EOUSA were located in the 

United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah. Defs.’ Mem., Boseker Decl. ¶¶ 15-16. 

The EOUSA released 4 pages in full, released one page in part, and withheld 40 pages in full 

(two of which were grand jury transcripts), relying on FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 

7(F). Id. ¶¶ 8-9; see generally id., Ex. G (Vaughn Index). In addition, the EOUSA referred 

records to the FBI and the BIA “to make determinations . . . and respond directly” to the 

plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. The EOUSA’s declarant averred that all reasonably segregable information 

has been released to the plaintiff. Id. ¶ 45. These determinations were affirmed on 

administrative appeal to the Office of Information Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. Id. ¶¶ 12-

13.

On January 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order [ECF No. 14] advising the plaintiff of his 

obligation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond 

to the defendants’ motion, and specifically warned the plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the 

motion by February 24, 2015, the Court may treat the motion as conceded. To date, the plaintiff

has not filed an opposition to the motion or requested more time to do so. Nor has the plaintiff 

notified the Clerk of Court of a new address. 

3
For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the above facts are deemed admitted. See

LCvR 7(h)(1) (“In determining a motion for summary judgment, the court may assume that facts 

identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is 

controverted in the statement of genuine issues.”). Although the Court may treat the 

government’s unopposed motion as conceded, see LCvR 7(b), summary judgment is warranted 

only if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Alexander v. FBI, 691 F. 

Supp. 2d 182, 193 (D.D.C. 2010) (“[E]ven where a summary judgment motion is unopposed, it 

is only properly granted when the movant has met its burden.”). Here, the defendants have met 

their burden, and absent any opposition from the plaintiff, the Court will grant summary 

judgment in the defendants’ favor.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: April 21, 2015 /s/

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge

4