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

) F RED ERI CK

B AN KS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civ il A c tio n N o. 07 -0 30 9 ( EG S) ) HARL EY LAPPI

N, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the Court on def endants’ r enew ed motion for summary judgme nt and plaintiff’ s rene wed c ross-motion for summary judgme nt. The Court g rants the f ormer, de nie s th e latte r, and

e nte rs jud g me nt f

or de fe nd ants . I . BA CKGROUND A. Plain tif

f’ s R e ma ini ng

Fr e e do m o

f I nfo rm ati on Ac t an d Priv ac yAc t Cla im s Plaintiff broug ht this action in part under the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. De fenda nts argued that all of pla intiff’s F OIA a nd Pr iva c y Ac t c la ims we re su

bje c t to dis mis sa l be c a

us e he ha d n ot e xha

us te d h is administrative re medies prior to filingthe instant civil action. SeeMem. of P. & A . in Support of De fs.’ Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J . or for

a More Def

inite Statement [#17] at 7-10. Def

endants a lrea dy

have e stablished that plaintiff fa iled to exhaust admini strative
reme dies with respe ct to FOIA re quests submitt ed to the United States De partment of the Trea sury (“Tr easur

y ”), the Transpor

tation Security

Ag ency (“TSA” ), the Passport Of fice of the United States Depa

rtment of State (“ Passport Offic e”) , the L ibrary of Cong ress (“ L OC”), a

nd the2

Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons (“ BO P”). Ba nk s v . La pp in , 539 F. Supp. 2d 228, 236 (D.D .C. 2008). F ur the r, it w a s d e te rm ine d th at pl a int if f f a ile d to e xha

us t a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s w ithre sp e c t to his Privacy

Act re quests to the BO P, the Passport Office , and the TSA. Id. I t was uncle ar on the p r e v i o u s r e c o r d

w h e th e r th e J u s t i c e D e p art m e n t ’ s E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e f o r U n i t e d S t at e s A t t o r

n e ys (“EO USA”), ha d rec eived plaintiff’ s FOIA and Privac y Act re quest. Id. at 237. The Court g rante d defe ndants’ motion in part, and dismissed the FO I A claims ag ainst the Tre asury , the TSA, the Passport Offic e, the L OC, and the B OP, as well as the Priva cy Act cla ims ag ainst the BO P, the Passport Office , and the TSA. Id. In the instant motion, defendants have addr essed the
re ma ini ngPr iva c y

Ac t c la ims a g a ins t th e Tr e a sury and the L OC , a

nd the re ma ini ngF OIA c la im ag ainst the EOUSA. SeeMe mor and um o f P oints a

nd Autho ri tie s in

Sup po rt of De fe nd ants ’ Renewe d Motion for Summary J udg ment (“D efs.’ Renewe d Mot.”) at 4- 5. The Tr easur

y ’s dec laration clarifies that the ag ency treats FOIA re quests and Privac y Act reque sts in the same manner . Def s.’ Renew ed Mot., Amd. Gilmore De cl. ¶ 6. Upon r ece ipt of a reque st under either

Act, “a n elec tronic re cord is cr eate d by enter ing r eleva

nt information from the re quest into a trac king database .” Id. ¶ 5. The de clar ation repe ats that ag ency staff’ s sear ch of the tr a c kin gdata

ba se us ingpla int if

f’ s n ame and

de ri vatio ns of

his name a s se arc h te rm s yielded no re cords. Id. ¶ 6. In addition, the decla ration re ports that “[a]ll of the re spective burea u FOIA contac ts searc hed the na me and or g anization fields of their re spective database s,” and found no r ecor ds pertainingto plaintiff. Id. ¶ 8. Simi larly , the L OC’s dec laration clarifies that ag ency staff se arc hed its Records Manag ement Sy stem (RMS) “for a ny Privacy Act re quest by

[P laintiff] at the [L OC] from theM s . Fe r n an dez l opez e x ec u t ed h er de cl ar at i on on Apr i l 4, 2008. 1 3 beg inning of

cale ndar year

2007 to present.” Def

s.’ Renew ed Mot., Fe rnande zlopez Dec l. ¶ 7. 1 No re cords we re loc ated. Id. ¶ 8. L a s tl y , th e E O U SA ’ s d e c la r ati o ne xp la in s th at i t “ r e c e iv e d n o r e qu e s t f

r o m [ p la inti f

f ] – wh e the r F OIA o r P ri va c y Ac t – o the r t

ha n th os e de a lt w ith ” in a

se pa rate c ivi l a c tio n b e fo re thi s Court . D e fs .’ Re ne we d M ot. , D e c laratio n o f John F . B os e ke r ¶ 7; see Bank

s v. De p’t of Justice , 538 F. Supp. 2d 228, 235-37 (D .D.C. 2008) (g rantingdefe ndants’ summary judgme nt motion with respec t to plaintiff’s FOIA claims ag ainst the EOUSA). In h is o pp os iti on , p la int if f m e re ly re pe ats h is a sse rt ion s th at he se nt P ri va c y Ac t r e qu e sts to the Trea sury

and the L OC. Pl.’s Reply in Opp’n to Def

s.’ Renew ed Mot. for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Opp’n” ) at 1-2 & Ex . (Amd. B anks De cl.) ¶¶ 1-2. An ag ency

may meet its burden on summary judgme nt by

submitt ing a ffidavits or decla rations that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the ag ency ’s sea rch. Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). In the abse nce of contra ry evidenc e, such aff idavits or decla

rations ar e suff

icient to demonstrate a

n ag ency ’s compliance with the FOIA. Id . at 127. The de clar ations from the Tr easur y and the L OC adequately

establish that eac h conducte d a re asonable sear ch of its re cords a nd deter mined that plaintiff had not submitted a Privacy Act re quest. L ikewise, the EO USA’s supportingdecla ration establishes that plaintiff
su bmi tte d n o F OIA r e qu e st o the r t ha n th os e re qu e sts wh ic h a

re the su bje c t of an unr e late d c ivi l action. “Without any

showing that the ag ency

rec eived the r equest, the a g ency has no oblig ation to respond to it.” Hutchins v. De p’t of Justice , N o. 00 -2 34 9, 20 05 WL13 34 94 1, at *1 -2 (D .D .C. J une 6, 2005). Plaintiff pre sents neither a n argument nor evide nce suf ficient to withstand defe ndants’ re newe d motion, and the motion will be g rante d on this matter.4 B. Con sti tut ion al C

lai m A ga ins t H

ar le yLap pin 1. Fa ilure to Exhaust Admi nistrative Remedies Pla int if f b ri ng s a c on sti tut ion a l c la im a g a ins t H arl e y L a pp in, B OP’ s D ir e c tor , in

his individual capac ity

under Bivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). SeeCom pl. at 3- 4. De fe nd ants argue tha t pl a int if f m us t e xha us t hi s administrative re medies on such a claim as is re quired unde r the Prison L itigation Refor m Act (“PL RA”) be fore filing a

civil action in court. SeeDef s.’ Renew ed Mot. at 6-7. In r e le va nt p art , th e PL RApr ov ide s th at: [n] o ac t ion shall be broug ht with respec t to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other F eder al law, by

a prisoner confine d to any

jail, prison, or other c orre ctional fa cilit y until such administrative re medies as a re a vailable a re e x hausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (empha sis added). This e x haustion require ment is mandatory and “a pplies to all prisoners see king r edre ss for prison cir cumstance s or occ urre nces.” Po rte r v . Nu ssle , 534 U. S. 5 16 , 5 20 (2 00 2) ; see J ones v. Boc k, __ U.S. __, __, 127 S.C t. 910, 918-19 (2007). Pla int if f’ s c la im a g a ins t L a

pp in p e rt a ins to t

he c on dit ion s o f h is c on fi ne me nt, and , th e re fo re , it is subject to the PL RA’s exhaustion requirement. On this recor d, the Court conclude s plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative
reme dies with respe ct to his claims ag ainst defe ndant L appin. Def endants show that B OP staff conducte d a sea

rch of the elec tronic data

bases whe re r ecor ds of inmates’ f ormal administrative
reme dy reque sts are ma intained. SeeMem. of P. & A . in Support of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismi ss or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J ., or for a more Def

inite Statement [ #17] C ox Dec l. ¶ 5. Ther e
wer e no re cords of

“any formal a dminist rative r emedy reque sts . . . pertainingto the issues raised in [ plaintiff’s] complaint, including the c ircumstance s reg ardinghis placeme nt in the [ Special5

Housing Unit] and his alleg ations of discrimination and def amation.” Id. D. Fa lseCla im s A c t Cla im Pla int if f b ri ng s c ivi l r ig hts c la ims a g a ins t st a ff at th e F e de ra l Co rr e c tio na l Co mpl e x in Butne r, North Car olina (“F CC Butner” ) ar ising fr om an incident on De cembe r 28, 2006. Staff members a

re a lleg ed to have handcuf fed pla intiff and to have place d him “into the hole” in orde r to “cur tail [ plaintiff’s] leg al ac tions in civil and cr iminal matters beca use he w as blac k and Ind ian a nd be c a us e of his pa g an r e lig ion .” Com pl. at 3. Pla int if

f a lle g e s th at, t

hr ou g h th e ir
a lle g e d unc on sti tut ion a l a c tio ns wi th r e g ard to t he De c e mbe r 2 8, 20 06 inc ide nt, the se de fe nd ants “willfully [,] knowing ly [,] intentionally , purposef ully , knowing ly

[si c], and maliciously

took and stole money

from the United States f

rom their paychec ks, insurance and pensions.” Id. at 5. Under the Fa lse Claims Act, see31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. , plaintiff demands not only “33% of their asse ts and income” but also “the a ssets of their spouses.” Id. A “pr ivate per son[] actingon behalf of the g overnme nt may

sue those who de fra

ud the g ov e rnme nt a

nd may sh are in a

ny pr oc e e ds ult imate ly

re c ov e re d” un de r t

he F a lse Cla ims Ac t. United States ex

rel. J. Cooper &Assoc., Inc . v. Be rnard Hodes Group, Inc

. , 422 F. Supp. 2d 22 5, 23 3 ( D. D. C. 2 00 6) ; see31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) (“Aperson may bringa civil ac tion for a violation of [t he F alse Claims Act] for the per son and for the United States Gove rnment.”) . That person, c alled a r elator, r epre sents the intere sts of the United States. Un ite d S tates e xre l. Rock efeller v . W

estinghouse Elec . Co. , 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D .C. 2003), aff’d , No. 03- 7120, 2004 WL180254 (D.C. Cir. J an. 21, 2004), cert. de nied , 543 U.S. 820 (2004). Plaintiff’s opposition reveals a fundame ntal misunderstandingas to the nature of a qui tam action. He insists that he “is not re prese nting the inter est of the United States,” and that he “is suing the BO P, not the J ustice De partment.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 3. . “D espite the fa ct that the6

relator is entitled to share in the r ecove ry , in qui tam actions, the g overnme nt remains at a ll tim es the ‘re al par

ty in interest.’” United States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW

, Inc. , 118 F. Supp. 2d 991, 9 9 4 (C
. D. C al
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g United States ex rel. Killi ngsworth v. Nort hrop Corp. , 25 F.3d 7 1 5 , 7 2 0 (9 thC i r. 1 9 9 4 ))
. Fu rt h erm o re , p l ai n t i ff i s p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , and he “ is not qualified as a lay person to re prese nt the interests of the United States in court proc eeding s.” United States
ex re l. Rocke

feller , 2 74 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 16 ; Un ite d S

tates e xre l. F ish e r v . Ne two rk

So ftwa re Assoc. , 377 F. Supp. 2d 195, 196 (D.D .C. 2005) (dismissing complaint without prejudice beca use pr o s e pla int if

f m ay no t ma int a in s uit

a s qui tam relator without the assistance of counsel). In essenc e, plaintiff pur

ports to bringa qui tam ac tion on behalf of the United States ag ainst the United States. This claim fa ils because it presents no ca se or c ontroversy over which the Court has jurisdiction. Sweene y v. F ed. De posit Ins. Corp. , No. 96-5129, 1997 WL358255, at *1 (D.C. Cir. J une 5, 1997) ( per c uriam) ( finding that a cla im “arisingunder the qui provisions of the F alse Claims Act” se ekinga money judgme nt on behalf of

the United States ag ainst the Un ite d St ate s “ do [es ] not pr e se nt a jus tic ia ble c a se or

c on tr ov e rs y ” ); Preve nslik v. United States Patent &Trademark Office , No. 1:05cv498, 2005 WL6047270, at *1 (E.D. V a. June 16, 2005) (c on c lud ingthat a

qu i ta m a c tio n a g a ins t th e Un ite d St ate s Pate nt & Tr a de mark Of fi c e “ amou

nts to an ac tion by

the United States ag ainst the United States and . . . is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( 2)(B )”) , aff’d , 182 Fe d. Appx. 197 (4th C ir. May 24, 2006) (pe r curiam), cert. de nied, 5 49 U. S. 9 36 (2 00 6) ; Juliano v. Fe d. Asset Disposition Ass’n , 736 F. Supp. 3 4 8 , 3 5 2 ( D
. D
. C
. 1 9 9 0 ) ( d i s m i s s i n ga qu i t ama c t i o n

a g a i n s tan

e n t i ty o wn e d

an d c o n tr o l l e d

b y a fede ral g overnme nt ag ency , commentingthat “[t] he Court fa ils to see how such a redistribution of funds within the fe dera l gove rnment cr eate s the requisite c ase or controve rsy”), aff’d , 9597

F.2d 1101 ( D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). No cour

t may enter tain an ac tion where the par ties are not adver saries. see also South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador M edean G old Mining Co. , 145 U.S. 300, 301 (1892) (c oncludingthat the cour t could not adjudicate a

matter be tween tw o c or po ra tio ns wh ic h, sin c e the low e r c ourt ru lin g , h a d c ome un de r t he c on tr ol o f t

he same persons). I I I . CONCLUSI ON Th e Court

c on c lud e s th at pl a int if

f h a s f a ile d to e xha

us t hi s a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s w ith respe ct to his Privacy

Act cla ims ag ainst the Tre asury and the L OC, his FOIA claim ag ainst the EO USA , a

nd his c on sti tut ion a l c la im a g a ins t H arl e y L a pp in. F ur the r, the Court

c on c lud e s th at it lacks subjec t matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’ s Fa lse Claims Act claim bec ause it pre sents no
case or controve rsy . Acc ording ly , the Court g rants def endants’ r enew ed motion for summary judgme nt. 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: Marc h 9, 2009