UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA FREDERI CK HI

NES, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 09-1949 (RMU) : v. : Re Docume nt No.: 11 : UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA et al. , : : Def endants. :

MEMORAN DUM OP INION G R A N T I N G T H E D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R S U M M A R Y J U D G M E N T

I. INTRODUCTION In this pro se action brought ag ainst the United States and Wanda H unt, Chief of the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t/Privacy

Act Section of the Bur eau of Prisons (“B OP”) unde r the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, the plaintiff cha lleng es the a lleg ed fa ilure of the B OP to tim ely respond to his reque st for re cords perta ining to the c ontrac tual obligations of its contractor, the GEO Gr oup. The de fenda nts move to dismi ss under Rule 12(b) (6) f or fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d or, in the alter native, for

summary judgme nt under Rule 56. B eca use the de fenda

nts are now proce ssing the pla intiff’s re quest but have yet to issue a fina l ag ency deter mination, the court, relying on matters beyond the pleading s, will treat the def endants’ Rule 12( b)(6) motion as one for summary

judgme nt and g rant that motion based on the pla intiff’s fa ilure to exhaust his

1

See F E D . R. C I V . P. 12 (d) (d ir ect ing cou rt s t o t re ata Ru le 12( b)( 6) m oti on t o di smiss a s on e f or 1 summ ar y j udgm entwhen “matte rs out si de t he p le adi ngs ar e pr ese nte d t o an d no t e xcl ude d by the cou rt ”)
.administrative re medies. 2

II. F ACTUAL & P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On J une 11, 2009, the plaintiff r equeste d from the B OP any rec ords “maintaine d under [i ts] ag ency

and the Wacke nhut Correc tions Corporation now (GEO G roup, I ncorpor ation) contra ct No.: (JI PCc-005).” Compl., Ex . A. On August 17, 2009, the BOP informe d the plaintiff that it had located 1,738 pa g es of r esponsive mater ial, the first 100 of whic h he wa s entitled to at no char g e, and the rema inder of which would be pr ovided to him for a duplication fee of $163.80. See Def

.’s Mot., Dec l. of Ana L . Velilla-Ar ce ( “Ve lilla-Arce Dec l.”), Ex. B. I n addition, the BO P informed the plaintiff that he could re duce his c osts by narr owingthe scope of his request, a

nd further informed him that unless he “ indicate[d] [ his] willingness to pay [t he] fee . . . or [] ref

ormulate[d] what [he soug ht] , this request [would] not be consider ed as r ece ived and no further action [would] be take n.” Id
. The plaintiff c ommenced this ac tion on October 15, 2009, a lleg ing that the BO P had failed to a dequate ly

respond to his reque st for re cords. See ge nerallyCompl. On November 5, 2009, the Washington L awyers’ Commi ttee for Civil Rights and Ur

ban Af fairs ( “the Commi ttee”) paid the duplication fe e on the plaintiff’ s behalf. V elilla-Arc e De cl., Ex. C . The Commi ttee stated that it would provide the plaintiff with a c opy of the re sponsive documents afte r they wer e for war ded to the Committ ee. Id . The de fenda nts repre sent that the proc essingof

T he c our t a ls o grant s t he d ef end ant s’ m oti on t o di smiss d ef end ant Hunt fr om

th is ac ti on u nde r 2 Rule 12( b)( 1). See San ti ni v. Ta yl or , 555 F. Supp. 2 d 18 1, 18 3- 84 ( D.D.C. 20 08) (h old ing th at the cou rt “l acks j uri sdi ct ion to hea r FOIA clai m s a gains t i ndi vidual s, e ven wher e s uch ind ividu al s a re agency hea ds o r o the r a gency off ic ia ls named i n t hei r o ff

ic ia l c apa ci ty”). 2the plaintiff’s r equest is now under way . Velilla-Ar ce D ecl. ¶ 10.

III. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard f

or a Mot ion f

or Sum m ary Judgm ent in a FOIA D ispu te Summary judgme nt is appropriate when “ the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law.” F E D . R. C I V . P. 56(c) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood , 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The F OIA mandate s full public disclosure of a g ency rec ords unless the reque sted rec ords “f

all square ly ” within one or more of the nine statutory exemptions
. W

ash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep’ t of Agric. , 943 F. Supp. 31, 33 (D.D .C. 1996) (quoting Burka v. U .S. Dep’ t of Health &Human Serv

s. , 87 F.3d 508, 515 ( D.C. Cir. 1996)). The c ourt may awa rd summary judgme nt solely

on the information provide d in affidavits or declar ations that describe “the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail . . . and a

re not c ontroverte d by either c ontrary

evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Vaughn v . Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. de nied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

B. Th e P laintif

f H as F ailed to Exhau st His Administrat ive Rem edies “Exhaustion of administrative remedie s is ge nera lly require d befor e see king judicia l revie w [of a FO IA claim] ‘so that the ag ency has an oppor

tunity to exercise its discretion and expertise on the matter a

nd to make a f

actua l rec ord to support its decision.’” W ilbur v. CIA , 355 F.3d 675, 676 ( D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Oglesby v . Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 61 ( D.C. Cir.
31990)). In the FO IA context, the exhausti on require ment is a prudential c onsideration, not a

jurisdictional prere quisite, and there fore a plaintiff’ s failure to exhaust does not deprive the c ourt of subject- matter jurisdiction. Id . But a s a prude ntial considera tion, the exhausti on require ment may still bar judicia l reviewif both the administrative sche me at issue and the purposes of exhaustion support such a bar. Id . (citing Hidalgo v. FBI , 344 F.3d 1256, 1258- 59 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). With reg ard to the f irst of these two f

actor s, this C ircuit has conc luded that the F OIA’s administrative sche me supports barr ing judicia l review
. Id. As for the second f actor , the cour

t must ex amine whe ther ba rringjudicial revie w would “pr event[] premature inter fer ence with ag ency proce sses, so that the ag ency may function ef

ficiently and so that it may

have a n opportunity

to corre ct its own err ors, to aff ord the pa rties and the c ourts the bene fit of its experience and expertise, and to c ompile a re cord which is adequate for judicia l review .” W einberge r v. Salfi , 422 U.S. 749, 765 (1975); see also Hidalgo , 344 F.3d a t 1259 (applying W einberge r in the FOIA context). When the plaintiff is challeng ing a fee waiver

deter mination, “[e] x haustion does not
occur until the required f

ees a re pa id or an a

ppeal is take n from the r efusa l to waive fe es.” Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 66; accord Judicial W atch, Inc . v. FBI

, 190 F. Supp. 2d 29, 33 (D.D .C. 2002). In addition, the plaintiff is require d to appea l any adver se dec ision to t he De partment of J ustice’s Of

fice of Information and Priva cy (“O I P”) bef

ore se ekingrevie w of that de cision in this court. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (settingforth the pr ocedur es for obtaining a

n appea l of an a dverse deter mination). The plaintiff doe s not dispute that he failed to pa y the assesse d fee befor e filingthis lawsuit, and there is no indication that he soug ht a fe e wa iver fr om the ag ency and wa s denied.
4See ge nerally Pl.’s Opp’n. Nor is there any indication that the plaintiff has sought to appeal the matter to the OI P. See ge nerally id. Acc ording ly , the cour t holds that the plaintiff has fa iled to exhaust his admini strative re medies. See, e .g. , Hidalgo , 344 F.3d at 1259 (aff irming the dismiss al of the pla intiff’s claim for failure to exhaust when the plaintiff had not yet had the “bene fit of prior OI P consideration”) . Given that the B OP is curre ntly proce ssing the pla intiff’s FOIA re quest, the cour

t dismi sses this action without prejudice to the pla intiff’s filingof a ne w civil action, if nec essar

y , afte r the a dminist rative pr ocess ha s conclude d.

IV. CONCLUSION For the fore g oing r easons, the c ourt g rants the de fenda nts’ motion for summary

judgme nt. An Orde r consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and conte mporane ously

issued this 7th day

of September , 2010.

RI CARDO M. URBI NA United States District J udg e

5