UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

MARTIN SANCHEZ-ALANIZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1812 (EGS)

)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF )

PRISONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP” or 

“defendant”), brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 

552. Now before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for 

Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15]. Because defendant has submitted and the Court has 

considered matters outside of the pleadings, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment. 

For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied without prejudice. 

I. The BOP’s Search for Records Responsive to FOIA Request No. 2013-10877

Upon receipt of a request under the FOIA, an agency generally must search its records for 

responsive documents. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). An agency “fulfills its obligations under 

FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to 

uncover all relevant documents.” Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 

504, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To meet its burden, 

1
the agency may submit affidavits or declarations that explain in reasonable detail the scope and 

method of its search. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In the absence of 

contrary evidence, such affidavits or declarations are sufficient to demonstrate an agency’s 

compliance with the FOIA. Id. at 127. On the other hand, if the record “leaves substantial doubt 

as to the sufficiency of the search, summary judgment for the agency is not proper.” Truitt v. 

Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast 

Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff seeks a “report issued by the Special Investigative Service on or about May 

2013[,] June 2013 or July 2013 . . . at Atwater United States Penitentiary” regarding plaintiff. 

Compl., Ex. D (Letter to Office of the General Counsel, BOP, from plaintiff dated August 6, 

2013). The BOP’s declarant explains that “SIS records remain at the originating institution,” 

Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summ. J. 

(“Defs.’ Mem.”), Vickers Decl. ¶ 11, and that the BOP’s Central Office assigned plaintiff’s 

FOIA request to the Western Regional Counsel’s Office (“WXRO”), id., Vickers Decl. ¶ 21. 

This declarant further states that “FOIA Request No. 2013-10877 was processed by the FOIA 

technician at the WXRO,” that the technician “acknowledged receipt of five responsive pages 

from USP Atwater SIS,” and that the technician “immediately released five pages to Inmate 

Sanchez-Alaniz free of charge.” Id. ¶ 22. Missing from the declaration is any description of the 

search itself. The declarant neither identifies which files were searched, nor explains why 

particular files were searched, nor describes how the files were searched. The declaration is 

vague and conclusory, and it does not explain adequately the scope and method of the BOP’s 

search.

2
II. Exemption 7(F)

Exemption 7(F) protects from disclosure information contained in law enforcement 

records that “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any 

individual.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F). “While [C]ourts generally have applied Exemption 7(F) to 

protect law enforcement personnel or other specified third parties, by its terms, the exemption is 

not so limited; it may be invoked to protect ‘any individual’ reasonably at risk of harm.” Long v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 450 F. Supp. 2d 42, 79 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F)). 

The agency need not “specifically identify the individuals who would be endangered.” Elec. 

Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 777 F.3d 518, 520 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “In 

reviewing claims under [E]xemption 7(F), courts have inquired whether there is some nexus 

between disclosure and possible harm and whether the deletions were narrowly made to avert the 

possibility of such harm.” Antonelli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 623 F. Supp. 2d 55, 58 (D.D.C. 

2009) (citing Albuquerque Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851, 858 (D.D.C. 

1989)). 

According to a second declarant, the BOP applies Exemption 7(F) to withhold “portions 

of the [Inmate Investigation Report] in this case in conjunction with [Exemption 7(C)] because 

of strong indications that there was a reasonable likelihood that a threat of harm could be posed 

to certain individuals should the withheld material be released.” Defs.’ Mem., Ochoa Decl. ¶ 21. 

She further states that “[a] reasonable likelihood that there was a threat of harm to BOP SIS 

employees and inmates could be inferred from the facts and circumstances evident in the 

document[] in question.” Id. This description is vague and conclusory. Based on the BOP’s 

3
declaration and review of the redacted Inmate Investigation Report, there is no apparent 

connection between disclosure and possible harm to SIS employees or to inmates. 

The BOP has not demonstrated that its search for records responsive to FOIA Request 

No. 2013-10877 was reasonable or that its reliance on Exemption 7(F) is proper. Accordingly, it 

is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for 

Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Rule [26] is DENIED, and that his Motion for 

Leave to File [28] is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 28, 2015 /s/

EMMETT G. SULLIVAN

United States District Judge

4