UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JEREMY PINSON , : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 12

- 1872 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 126 : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et. al , : : Defendant s . : MEMORANDUM & ORDER
D ENYING AS M OOT D RUG E NFORCEMENT A DMINISTRATION ’ S R ENEWED M OTION FOR S UMMARY J UDGMENT
Pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson is currently an inmate at ADX Florence, a federal prison
located in Colorado. While in prison, Mr. Pinson sent numerous Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) req uests to various federal agencies. Dissatisfied with several agencies’ responses to his requests, Mr. Pinson filed a lengthy complaint in this C ou rt against numerous agencies under the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) umbrella. See generally Corr. 2d. Am. Compl., ECF No. 32. At issue here is Mr. Pinson’s claim against the Drug Enforcement Administration (“ DEA ”) alleging FOIA violations with regard to his request for records on Ismael Guzman (Request No.
12

- 0429

- F). See id. at 10 ; see generally Def. ’s Mot. D ismiss Summ. J., ECF No. 45. In its motion for summary judgment, the DOJ based its refusal to conduct a search for records sought in Request No. 12

- 0429

- F on the grounds that Mr. Pinson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies relating to the request , that the request “ did not contain a re asonable des cription” of the records sought and therefore did not constitute a “proper” request, and that the Certificate of Identity provided by Plainti ff for the release of records relating to Mr. Guzman was of “qu estionable validity.” See Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Summ. J. at 5, 7

- 8, ECF No. 45.In denying sum mary judgment as to Request No. 12

- 0429

- F , this Court rejected the DOJ’s contention that Plaintiff’s action was barred due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and found that the request “re asonably d escri bed” the records sought. See Pinson v. Dep’t of Justice , No. 12

- 1872, 2014 WL 4825855 at *6, *8 (Sept. 30, 2014). Still , the Court ordered supplementa l briefing on the issue of the Guzman certification’ s authenticity, instructing the DOJ to “contact Mr. Guzman to d etermine whether he signed the C ertification of Identity and consented to the release of his information to Mr. Pinson in connection with FOIA Request No.
12

- 0429

- F.” See id. at *9. Now before the Court is the DOJ’s response to the Court’s order for supplemental briefing, which contains a renew ed motion for summary judgment as to the DEA. See generally Def.’s Response to Court Order [] For Supplemental Briefing, ECF No. 126. The DOJ states in
i ts motion and attached declaration that after reviewing a copy of the Certification of Identit y for authentication purposes, “[Mr.] Guzman advised... that he did not sign the Certificate of Identity and that it was not his signature.” See Demeo Decl. ¶ 3

- 4, ECF No. 126

- 1. He further stated that “inmate Jeremy Pinson...is not authorized to receive [my] documents.” Id. at ¶5.
T he Court a ccepts Defendant’ s declaration and concludes that Mr. Guzman never signed the authorization in the first pl ace, or has since withdrawn his authorization. 1 E ven if Mr. Pinson’s claim that he saw Mr. Guzman sign the Certificate of Identity form is true, the declaration makes clear that any prior authori zation has since been withdrawn, and no dispute of fact remai ns. But this does not end the matter. The Court notes that despite not having Mr. Guzman’s
consent to release his records , the DEA was still required to process Mr. Pinso n’s request under

1 While the Court acknowledges Mr. Pinson’s evidentiary objections to the declara tion , see ECF No. 135, it remains satisfi ed with the evidence presented. 2F OIA. The DEA has never done so because it asserted that the reques t did not adequate ly describe the records sought

– a notion that Court previously rejected. See Pinson, No. 12

- 1871 at *5. The DEA has also f ailed to adequately justify withh olding any such records under the FOIA personal privacy exception or otherwise. Ne vertheless, because the Court accepts Mr. Pinson ’s statement in his Reply brief that “he will not pursue [this] claim further if M r. Guzman has changed his mind,” see Pl.s’s Reply, ECF No. 135, the DEA will not be required to pursue this course of action, and the Court w ill deny this motion as moot in light of Mr. Pinson’s decision to abandon his claim regarding Request No. 12

- 0429

- F. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’ s renewed motion for summary judgment ( ECF
No. 126 ) is DENIED AS MOOT

. SO ORDERED

.
Dated: May 1 5 , 2015 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

3