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

___________________________________ ) STANLE Y JACK SON, ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-930 (R WR) ) BU RE AUOF P RI SON S, ) ) Defendan t. )

___________________________________ )
M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION P l ai nt i ff S t an l ey J ac k s o n , a p ri s o n er

p ro ce ed i n g pro se and in f or ma pa up e ris, sues the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons (“ BO P”) under the Privacy

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, see king a n order requiringthe B OP “to corr ect its ag ency rec ords per

taining to the Plaintiff” that are located in the “B OP Central Files.” Compl. at 4-5. Specifica lly , J ackson w ants the “ma nag ement variable,” the “public saf

ety fac tor” a nd the “greater sec urity” information in his rec ord ame nded. Id. at 5. The BO P has filed a motion to dismi ss, assertingthat the complaint fa ils to st ate a claim upon which
re lie f m ay

be g ra nte d b e c a us e the re c or ds at is su e are ma int a ine d in the B OP’ s Ce ntr a l Inma

te Record Sy stem and ar e exempt from the ame ndment provisions of the Privacy Act. See Memorandum of

Points and Authorities in Support of Def endant’ s Motion to Dis miss, at 6-7. In deter mining whe ther a

complaint fails to state a c laim upon which re lief may be grante d, a cour

t ge nera lly

“must acc ept as true all of the fa ctual alleg ations contained in the complaint,” Erickson v . Pardus, 55 1 U .S. 89 , 9 4 ( 20 07 ), and “ gra nt p la int if fs the be ne fi t of

a ll infere nces that can be derive d from the f acts a lleg ed,” but ne ed not ac cept e ither a pla intiff’s leg al
c on c lus ion s, or

inf e re nc e s d ra wn by the pla int if

f i f t ho se inf e re nc e s a re un su pp or te d b y fa c ts- 2 -

alleg ed in the complaint. Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). To survive a

motion to di smiss, a complaint must m ake c lear the grounds of the pla intiff’s entitlement to relief. See A shcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009) ; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). The B OP has, in acc ordanc e with the law, see 5 U .S. C. § 55 2a (j )( 2) , e xemp te d it s Inmate Central Rec ords Sy stem from ce rtain provisions of the Privac y Act, includingthe provision that require s it to m aintain ac curate re cords or to amend inac curate re cords, a nd from suits arising from inac curate re cords. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a) (4) ( exempting the Inmate Centra l Records Sy ste m) ; see also Martinez v . BOP, 44 4 F .3 d 6 20 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 6) (a ff ir min gtha t th e Inma

te Central Rec ords Sy stem is ex empt from the Privac y Act provisions). F urthermor e, to the extent that the pro se plaintiff intended to see k corr ection of infor mation in his presentenc e report (a
matte r n ot e xpre ssl y

ra ise d unti l pl a int if

f f ile d h is o pp os iti on

to t he de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s,
see Pl.’s Opp’n at 2), be cause the pre sentenc e report is also part of the Inmate Centra l Records Sy stem, it is equally

unrea chable under the Privacy Act. B eca

use all the re cords at issue are exempt from the part of the law the plaintiff a sks this court to enforc e, the c ourt ca nnot provide the re lief re quested. Ac cording ly , the plaintiff’s c laims will be dismi ssed for f ailure to state a claim upon which r elief ma y be grante d. A sepa rate , final orde r ac companies this memora ndum opinion.
/ s / RI CHARD W. R OB ERTS Da t ed : S ep t emb er

2 4 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge