1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

:

FREDERICK BANKS, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 06-1950 (EGS)

:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 

U.S.C. § 552, and the sole remaining issue pertains to the withholding of certain information by 

the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”). This matter is before the Court on 

Defendant USPIS’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.

1

 For the reasons discussed below, 

the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff submitted seven separate FOIA requests to the USPIS between 2005 and 2009, 

three of which are relevant to this action. See Banks v. Dep’t of Justice, 813 F. Supp. 2d 132, 

135 (D.D.C. 2011). The Court has granted summary judgment in the USPIS’ favor with respect 

 1 Plaintiff also filed a summary judgment motion of his own, see Pl.’s Renewed Mot. for 

Summ. J. and Decl. [Dkt. #97], which in no way conforms to the format or substance of a true 

summary judgment motion. It will be denied. 
2

to his March 2006 request (FOIA No. 2006-FPIS-00167).2

 Banks v. Dep’t of Justice, 538 F. 

Supp. 2d 228, 234-35 (D.D.C. 2008). In addition, the Court has granted in part and denied in 

part the USPIS’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #75] with respect to 

plaintiff’s December 28, 2004 and July 11, 2005 requests (FOIA Nos. 2005-FPIS-00020 and 

2005-FPIS-00180, respectively). See Banks, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 146.

Among the records responsive to these requests were three documents from which the 

USPIS redacted information under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E): the Application and Affidavit for 

Search Warrant (Doc. No. 5), the Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint (Doc. No. 13), and 

the Case Summary (Doc. No. 15). Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. USPIS’ Renewed Mot. for

Summ. J. [Dkt. #94] (“USPIS Mem.”), Decl. of Betty L. White (“White Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5; see

Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and for Summ. J. [Dkt. #87], Second 

Supplemental Decl. of Mildred R. Baxter, Ex. A (Supplemental Index of Redacted/Withheld 

Documents with FOIA Exemptions (“Supp. Vaughn Index”) (Doc. Nos. 5, 13 and 15). Upon 

further review, the USPIS has determined that “the information previously withheld pursuant to 

Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) is releasable and USPIS no longer asserts” these exemptions. USPIS 

Mem., White Decl. ¶ 6. On December 8, 2011, the USPIS unredacted versions of these 

documents to plaintiff. Id., White Decl. ¶ 6. 

 2 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #20] 

addressed plaintiff’s FOIA requests not only to the USPIS, but also to the Department of Justice, 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Marshals 

Service, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State and Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). 
3

II. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment in a FOIA Case

“FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.” 

Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). The Court 

grants summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and [that it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In an 

action under FOIA to compel production of agency records, the agency “is entitled to summary 

judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates ‘that each document that falls 

within the class requested either has been produced . . . or is wholly exempt from [FOIA’s] 

inspection requirements.’” Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State, 257 F. 3d 828, 833 

(D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Goland v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 

1978)). 

Summary judgment may be based solely on information provided in an agency’s 

supporting affidavits or declarations if they are relatively detailed and when they describe “the 

documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate 

that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption[s], and are not 

controverted by either contrary evidence in the record [or] by evidence of agency bad faith.” 

Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see Beltranena v. Clinton, 

770 F. Supp. 2d 175, 182 (D.D.C. 2011). “To successfully challenge an agency’s showing that it 

complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with ‘specific facts’ demonstrating that 

there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant 
4

agency records.” Span v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 696 F. Supp. 2d 113, 119 (D.D.C. 2010) 

(quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)).

B. The USPIS Has Met Its Obligations Under The FOIA

Having determined that the USPIS properly withheld certain information from the three 

documents at issue under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), see Banks, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 141-44, the only 

information withheld from these same documents has been “withheld solely based on the 

assertion of Exemption 7(D) and Exemption 7(E).” USPIS Mem., White Decl. ¶ 6 (emphasis in 

original). Now that the USPIS has withdrawn its reliance on these exemptions and has released 

unredacted versions of these documents, id., White Decl. ¶ 6, the USPIS moves for summary 

judgment, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to its compliance with the 

FOIA and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See generally USPIS Mem. at 2-3. 

Plaintiff opposes the USPIS’ motion, see Pl.’s Reply to Def. U.S. Postal Inspection 

Serv.’s Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. #96] (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), arguing that the USPIS “has 

failed to explain why the information had not otherwise un-redacted in part where the 

exemptions were not solely based on 7(D) and 7(E).” Pl.’s Opp’n at 1.3

 No other exemptions 

apply, however, and the USPIS is not obligated to explain why it did not release unredacted 

versions of the documents previously. It is apparent that the USPIS believed the information 

could be withheld under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), and revised its position as this litigation 

progressed. 

 3 Plaintiff’s argument that his “status as an American Indian” somehow entitles him to a 

more liberal interpretation of the FOIA, Pl.’s Opp’n at 1, is utterly meritless. “The FOIA does 

not concern itself with the identity of a requester.” Banks v. Dep’t of Justice, 700 F. Supp. 2d 9, 

19 (D.D.C. 2010). Plaintiff’s “status as a Native American . . . [does not] lead[] inexorably to 

the conclusion that he is entitled to the release in full of all the records he has requested.” Id.
5

The Court’s authority under the FOIA is limited, and “federal jurisdiction is dependent 

upon a showing that an agency has (1) ‘improperly’; (2) ‘withheld’; (3) ‘agency records.’” 

Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 

U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). The USPIS no longer relies on Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), and the 

defendants have established that the records responsive to all of plaintiff’s FOIA requests either 

have been produced or have been withheld properly under the claimed exemptions. Based on 

review of all the defendants’ supporting declarations and Vaughn Indices, the Court concludes 

that all reasonably segregable information has been released. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that the USPIS has complied fully with its obligations under the 

FOIA. Accordingly, its renewed motion for summary judgment will be granted. There remain 

no further issue for the Court’s resolution, and a final order is issued separately.

Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN

United States District Judge

Dated: July 26, 2012