Plaintiff’s Motion for Interlocutory J udg ment Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a) 1 [#46] is wholly

without merit and will be dismissed. 1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) F RED ERI CK

B AN KS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civ il A c tio n N o. 06 -1 95 0 ( EG S) ) DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the Court on def endants’ Re newe d Motion to Dism iss or, in the Alternative, for Summary J udg ment. For

the re asons discussed in this Memorandum Opinion, 1 the Court wi ll gra nt d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on

in p art and de ny it i n p art . I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff filed a ten- count Complaint under the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , see 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, see5 U.S.C. § 552a, ag ainst various g overnme nt entities alleg ing the ir failure to relea se re quested infor mation about himself and other individuals. On Def endants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, f or Summary

J udg ment [#20] (“D efs.’ Mot.”), the Court dismissed plaintiff’s cla ims ag ainst the Off ice of Probation and the Administrative Offic e for United States Courts beca use neither

is a g overnme nt ag ency

to which the FO I A and the Priva cy Act applies. Banks v. D ep’t of Justice , 538 F. Supp. 2d 228, 231-32 (2008). The Court gr anted summary judgme nt with respec t to the Financ ial Crimes Enforc ement2

Networ k, the United States De partment of State, a nd the United States Postal I nvestig ation Se rv ic e (“ USP I S” ) ( Marc h 2 00 6 r e qu e st o nly ) b e c a us e pla int if

f f a ile d to su

bmi t r e qu e sts to t

he se entities and there by

failed to e x haust his administrative reme dies befor e filingthis action. Id. at 233-35. In addition, beca use plaintiff did not pay

fee s associate d with his requests to the Ex ecutive O ffice for United States A ttorney s (“EO USA”), the Court gr anted summary judgme nt in favor of

the EOUSA be cause , ag ain, plaintiff fa iled to exhaust hi s administrative reme dies befor e filingthis action. Id. at 235-37. The United States Marsha ls Service ( “USMS”) established its full compliance w ith the FOIA and the Priva cy Act, and, the ref

ore, the Court g rante d summary

judgme nt in its favor
. Id. at 239-41. The Court denie d defe ndants’ motion in part bec ause ( 1) neither the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons (“B OP”) nor the USPI S established that its searc h for r ecor ds responsive to plaintiff’ s FOIA and Privac y

Act re quests was re asonable
. Banks , 538 F. Supp. 2d at 238-39. The Court de fe rr e d c on sid e ratio n o f t he re sp on se of

the F e de ra l B ur e a

u o f I nv e sti g atio n ( “ F B I ” ) p e nd ingits revie w of re cords it had located by sear chingits Central Records Sy stem. Id. at 237 n.7. Be fore the Court on defe ndants’ Rene wed Motion to Dismiss or, in t he Alter native, for Summary Judg me nt [# 32 ] ar e pe nd ingiss ue s r e g ard ingpla int if f’ s F OIA a

nd Pr iva c y Ac t r e qu e sts to t he F B I , th e B OP, and

the USP I S. I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Ex ha us tio n o

f A dm ini strati v e Re me die

s De fe nd ants a g a in m ov e to d ism iss a ll c la ims a g a ins t th e B OP, the F B I , a nd the USM S “due to Plaintiff’s f

ailure to satisfy

his obligations to pay

for the doc uments rec eived f rom theThe Court alre ady has g rante d summary

judgme nt with respec t to plaintiff’s 2 reque sts to the USMS , see Bank s , 5 3 8 F. S u

p p . 2 d at2 3 9 -4 1 , an d

d ec l i n es t o d i s turb th i s ru l i n g. 3 [EOUSA] , another

component of the Depa

rtment of Just ice.” Mem. of P. & A . in Support of 2 Re new ed M ot . t o Di sm is s o r, i n t he A lt erna ti ve, for S um m. J . (“D efs .’ R enew ed M ot .”) a t 3 . By fa ili ngto p ay

fe e s, de fe nd ants argue that pl a int if f’ s F OIA a

nd Pr iva c y Ac t c la ims are su

bje c t to dismiss al for f

ailure to e x haust administrative re medies, see id. at 3-6, a s “[e]x haustion does not
occur until the required f

ees a re pa id or until an appea l is taken from the r efusa l to waive fe es.” Oglesby v . United States Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 66 ( D.C. Cir. 1990).

1. Assessment and Ag g reg ation of Sear ch and D uplication Fe es R e g u l at i o n s p r o mu l g at e d b y th e U n i t e d

S t at e s D e p art m e n to f

J u s t i c e ( “ D O J ” ) s p e c i f

y, amongother thing s, “the sche dule of fe es applica ble to the proc essingof re quests . . . and . . . the proce dures a

nd g uidelines for de termining when suc h fee s should be waived or reduc ed.” 5 U. S.C. § 5 52 (a )( 4) (A )( i) ; see28 C.F.R. § 16.1 et seq . For purposes of the se re g ulations, the term “compone nt” means “ eac h separ ate bur eau, of fice , board, division, commission, service, or administration of the De partment of Justice,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.1(b) , and the EO USA, FB Iand B OP
are DOJ components. See28 C.F .R. § 0 .1 (s e tti ngfo rt h D OJ’ s o rg anizatio na l un its ). Re qu e sts submitt ed under

the Privacy

Act by individuals for rec ords about themselve s are proce ssed under these re g ulations also. See28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1(a) , 16.40(a)
. DOJ components “may

char g e for

time spent sear chingeven if they do not locate a

ny responsive r ecor d or if they withhold the rec ord(s) loc ated a s entirely exempt from disclosure,” 28 C.F .R. § 1 6. 11 (c )( 1) (i ), and fo r p a pe r p ho toc op ie s, 28 C.F .R. § 1 6. 11 (c )( 2) . I f t he re qu e ste r i s not seekingrec ords for a

commerc ial purpose, “ components will provide without char g e: (i) [t] he first 100 pag es of duplication . . . ; and (ii) [t ]he first two hours of sea rch . . ..” 28 C.F.R. §4

16.11(d)( 3). “[C] omponent[s] ordinarily shall collect a ll applicable f ees be fore sendingcopies of
re qu e ste d r e c or ds to a

re qu e ste r. ” 28 C.F .R. § 1 6. 11 (a ); see5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (A)( v) (authorizing a dvance pay ment of a f

ee if “the r equeste r has pr eviously failed to pa

y fee s in a timely fashion, or the ag ency

has dete rmined that the fe e will exceed $250” ) . Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (B )(vi), D OJ regulations also provide for the ag g reg ation of re qu e sts : Where a

component re asonably

believes that a re quester or a g roup o f requesters acting toge ther is attempting to divide a reque st into a series of reque sts for the purpose of avoidingfee s , t he compone nt may a g g re g ate tho se re qu e sts and c ha rg e a c c or din g ly . Co mpo ne nts may presume that multipl e requests of t his ty pe made within a 30-day p er i o dhave be en made in order to avoid fee s. Where re quests are se pa rate d by a lon g e r pe ri od , c omp on e nts wi ll a g g re g ate t hem on ly wh e re the re e xists a

so lid ba sis fo r d e te rm ini ngthat a g gregation is wa rr ante d und e r a ll the c ir c umsta nc e s invo lve d. Mu lti ple re qu e sts involving unre lated matter s will not be ag g reg ated. 2 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 6
. 1 1 ( h )
. “ W h e r e a r e qu e s t e r h a s p r e v i o u s l y

f a i l e d t o p ay a p r o p e r l y c h ar g e d F O IA fee to any component or a g ency

within 30 day s of the date of billing, a component may

require the re quester to pa

y the full amount due, plus any applicable interest, and to make an adva nce pay ment of the full amount of a ny anticipated f

ee, be fore the component be g ins to process a ne w reque st or continues to proce ss a pendingreque st from that reque ster.” 28 C.F .R. § 16.11(i)(3) (empha sis added). “ In case s in which a c omponent require s advanc e pay ment or pay

ment due under [28 C.F.R. § 16.11(i)(3) ], t he re quest shall not be consider ed re ceive d and fur ther wor k will not be done on it until t he re quired pa y ment is rece ived.” 28 C.F .R. § 16.11(i)(4). 2. Re qu e sts to t

he EO USA T o p l a c e th e d e f

e n d an t s ’ e x h a

u s t i o nar g u m e n ti nc o n t e x t , o n e mu s tr e c a l l p l a i n t i f f ’ s F O IAPlaintiff describe s himself as a “ musician, international r ecor ding a rtist and rec ord 3 produce r, writer , and filmmaker ,” and states that Vampire Nation is a business of whic h he is the sole proprie tor. Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defenda nts’ Motion to Dism iss or in the Al te rn ativ e fo r S umm ary Judg me nt [# 24 ] at

1. He “ re fe r[s ] to h is c omp any Va mpi re Natio n a s a ‘d ark e le c tr on ic mus ic pr oje c t’
. . . [a s a ] pr omo tio n s tyle [that] is n ot o f a ny c on se qu e nc e to t

his lawsuit.” Id. 5 and Privac y

Act re quests to the EOUSA. Releva nt to this discussion is his J anuar y 4, 2005
re qu e st f or “ a ll r e c or ds un de r t

he F OIA/ PA m a int a ine d b y [the EO USA ] on h ims e lf and an e nti ty . . . identified as Va

mpire Nation.” Notice of Filing[#23] , Dec laration of J ohn F. B oseker 3 (“B oseker Dec l.”) ¶ 4. Pla int if f a sk e d th at se arc he s b e pe rf or me d in the Wes te rn

Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (“U SAO/WDP A”) , the District of Columbia, the Northe rn District of Ohio, the D istrict of Colorado, the Ea stern District of Califor nia, and the Middle D istrict of Florida . Bose ker D ecl. ¶ 4. Be cause plaintiff aske d the EOUSA to “pe rfor m searc hes in multipl e USAOs,” id ., the EOUSA “c reated multiple files to reflec t the sever al sea rche s to be perf

ormed.” Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s reque st to the USAO/W DPA for a ll information about himself in criminal files wa s assig ned F OIA No. 05-61, id. ¶¶ 6, 11, a nd the re quest to the USAO/WDPA for information perta ining to Va

mpire Nation was assig ned F OIA No. 05-1622. Id . ¶ 38.

FOIA No. 05-61 ( Self) Whe n th e EO USAa c kn ow le dg e d it s r e c e ipt of F OIA N o. 05 -6 1, B os e ke r D e c l. ¶ 11 , it notified plaintiff of his oblig ation to pay fee s and informe d plaintiff that, “should [fees] be
a sse sse d a

nd g o unp a id, his fi le wo uld be c los e d a

nd no do c ume nts [wo uld

be ] re le a se d unti l pay ment was made .” Id
. T h e a g e n c y ’ s w r itte nn o ti f ic ati o na ls o a dv is e d

p la inti f f th at, “ [i ]n
acc ordanc e with 5 [U.S.C . §] 552(a)(6) (B )(vi) pr oviding f or ag g reg atingreque sts, the searc h times and duplication fee s for a ll dist ricts re quested would be ag g reg ated.” Id. ; se e id . Ex . F6

(January 13, 2005 letter fr om M.A. O’Rourke, A ssistant Director, F ree dom of Inf or matio n/P ri va c y

Ac t U nit , E OU SA) . Su

bs e qu e ntl y , th e EO USAno tif ie d p la int if

f t hat “ wh ile
no sear ch time was e stimated to ex cee d the two fre e hours in [the USAO/WDP A], there we re approximately

2000 pag es of potentially responsive r ecor ds, and that at ten c ents per pa g e af ter the first 100 fr ee pa g es, the likely char g e would excee d $25.00.” Id . ¶ 12. As is requir ed under 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(e) , the EOUSA soug ht plaintiff’s ag ree ment “to pay the anticipate d excess fee s or [to] ref ormulate his re quest to potentially reduc e that sum, understa nding that until he had done so, his reque st was not considere d rec eived a nd no further

work would be perf

ormed.” Id. ; see id. , Ex . G (F ebrua

ry 11, 2005 letter fr om M.A. O’Rourke) . Plaintiff ag ree d to pay the anticipated duplication fee, see id. , Ex . H, and the E OUSA proc essed the U SAO/MDPA recor ds. Id. ¶ 14. The E OUSA “wa s prepa red to re lease 36 pag es in full, 16 pag es in part, a nd was withholding appr ox imately 300 pag es in full.” Id. Howeve r, the EOU SA would not relea se any
re c or d unti l pl a int if

f p a id t he se arc h f

e e : In o ur le tt e r dat e d Jul y 1 2, 20 05 th atac c om pani e d r e spo nse file number05-1625 [Unit ed S tates Att orney ’s Office for the District of Colorado] , we in fo rme d y ou of aggregat ed fees associated with your nume rous request[s] . After revie wing all the documents, we have de termined that we can make a partial re lease . You pre viously ag ree d t o pay

sear ch and/or copying c o s t s . A $ 168.00 se arc h f e e is b e inga sse sse d f

or the se rec ords. I f y ou would like these rec ords, please send a chec k or money order for $ 168.00 , payable to the Tr easury of the United States . . .. If pay m e ntis no t r e c e ive d w it h in 30 d ay s fr omth e date of this l ett er, your r equest wil l be closed and any f uture r e que st s forr e c or ds willbe r e je c te d unt il pa ym e ntis r e c e ive d. Ple a se note that th is m ay no t be the fi na l c os t[] as so c iate d w ith pr oc e ssi ngy our num e ro us re qu e sts . Th e re are sti ll ope n r e qu e sts ( 05- 1623 [Unit ed States Attorney ’s Offic e for the District of Columbia] and 05-1627 [Unit ed States Attorney ’s Offic e for the Middle District7 of F lor ida ]) that wi ll inc re a se the fi na l se arc h/c op ying fe e s. We w ill be able to determine the final costs afte r we have rec eived r esponses from all of the districts in y our re quests. We will n o t i fy y ou acc ording ly

at that time. Id. , Ex . I(August 8, 2005 letter M.A. O’Rourke ) at 1 (bold ty pe in orig inal). The EOU SA reminded plaintiff of his obligation to pay

fee s associate d with his two reque sts to the USAO/W DPA. Bose ker D ecl. ¶ 19 & E x . L(Oc tober 3, 2005 letter from M.A. O’Rourke ). In rele vant par t, its l etter state d: On August 8, 2005, (reg arding05-61) an d o n J uly 26, 2005 (re g arding05-1622), we sent y ou letters indicatin g an estimate of a g g r e g ate d

f e e s char g e d

f o r p r o c e s s in gy o ur

[F O I A ] r e qu e s ts . We g ave y ou at least 30 da y s to respond in order

to rec eive the doc u me n ts . Si n c e w e h av e n o t h e ar d f r o m y o u in th at ti me , y our reque st files have be en close d. In or der to clear up any c onf usion you may have regar din g the fees charge d f or your re quests , p lease be aware that you are being charged an aggregat ed fee of $168 f or six (6) hours of searc h tim e that e xcee ded the two (2) hours w hich are free. Id. (bold ty

pe in orig inal). The E OUSA did not rec eive a response to its October 3, 2005 letter and, ac cording ly , it closed the file be cause plaintiff re fused to pay fee s. Bose ker D ecl. ¶

18. FOIA No. 05-1622 ( Vampire Nation) The EOU SA notified plaintiff that it had locate d rec ords at the USAO/WDPA perta ining to Vampire N ation and dete rmined that three pag es could be rele ased in full. B oseker Dec l. ¶ 39. I ts written notification included the sa me notice r eg ardingfee s and the a g g reg ation of fe es as wa s provided with re spect to F OIA No. 05-61. See id. , Ex . FF (Oc tober 5, 2005 letter from M.A. O’Rourke ). B eca

use plaintiff did not pay

the $168 fe e within the 30-da y time period, the EOUSA closed his file w ith respec t to FOIA No. 05-1622. Id . ¶ 42.The B oulder Resident Ag ency is part of the D enver

Field Of fice and maintains no 4 rec ords sepa

rate ly . Supp. Hardy

Dec l. ¶ 11 n.1. The F BI previously

had withheld these rec ords in their entire ty under Exemption 5 7(A), Supp. Ha

rdy Dec l. ¶ 11, and late r dete rmined that the e x emption no longe r applied a fter the investigation concer

ning pla intiff had bee n closed. Id. ¶ 14 n.4. 8 The F BI relied on pla intiff’s fa ilure to pay sear ch fe es assoc iated with the re quests to the EOUSA whe n it required that plaintiff pay duplication fee s in advanc e, as is desc ribed be low. 3. Re qu est s t o t he FBI In J anuar y 2005, plaintiff submitted requests under the FO I A and the Priva cy Act for in format io n ab ou t h im sel f t o t he FBI ’s W ash in gton , D. C. head qu art ers (“FBI HQ”) andto FBI Field Of fice s in Pi ttsburgh, Washing ton, D.C., Cleveland, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver , Boulde r and L os Ang eles. Notice of F iling [#34] , Dec laration of David M. Har dy (“Supp. Ha

rdy Dec l.”) ¶¶

5- 6; se e id ., Ex. A -B (Janu ary 15 , 2 00 5 a

nd Janu ary 20 , 2 00 5 F OIA/ PA R e qu e sts ). Hi s r e qu e st t o the Pitts burg h Field Of

fice (“PGF O”) was a ssigne d FOI PA Request No. 1012662-000. Id. ¶ 8 & Ex . D (January

31, 2005 letter fr om D.M. Hardy , Section Chief, Recor ds/I nformation Dissemination Section, Records Mana g ement Division, FB I HQ). Asear ch of a utomated indices located no r ecor ds responsive to his reque sts to the FB I HQ and the Field Of fice s in W ashing ton, D.C., Cleveland, Atlanta, Sea ttle, Denver , and L os Ang eles. Supp. Hardy Dec l. ¶ 11 & Ex . G 4 (M arc h 1 6, 20 05 le tte r f

ro m D .M . H ard

y ). Ho we ve r, “ re c or ds po te nti a lly re sp on siv e to h is reque st [ to the PGFO] were located in a file conta ining a

pproxi mately

3,205 pag es.” Id . ¶ 15. 5 I ts written notice to plaintiff stated that fee s would be asse ssed:

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(c)( 2), all docume nt s found t o be rele asable will be subjected t o a duplication cost of ten c ents per pag e. The first hundred pa g es of a rele ase a re pr ovided at no cost. 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d)( 1)( i ). I f all of the potentially responsive r ecor ds are de te rm ine d to be a c tua lly

re sp on siv e and re le a sa

ble , d up lic atio n c os ts would total $310.50. I n acc ordanc e with [DOJ ] reg ulations, 28The F BI withheld cer

tain information from these 100 pag es of r ecor ds under 6 FOIA Exempti ons 2, 6, 7(C), and 7( E). Ha rdy I IDec l. ¶ 8. 9 C.F.R. § 1 6 .11(i) and 16.49, sinc e the e stimated duplication fee s exceed $250 a

nd y ou have f

ailed to pay a prope rly

char g ed F OIA fe e to another c omponent of DO J , we a re r equestingadvanc e pay ment befor e proc essing commence s. No dupl ication fees wil l be assesse d for pa g es that ar e withheld in their en t i reties pursuant to any FOIA/Privacy

Act exemption. Id. , Ex . K (Apr il 9, 2008 letter from D.M. Ha rdy ) at 1. The FB Ihad bee n “advise d by the [EO USA ] that [pl a int if

f h a d] f a ile d to pa

y fe e s a sse sse d b y

that of fi c e in r e sp on se to a

F OIA/ PA reque st,” and for

this reason, the F BI

“re quire[d] that [pl aintiff] make adva nce pa y ment of the total amount of estimated duplication fe es bef ore [it would] proce ss more than the f irst 100 pag es of re cords r esponsive to [his] reque st.” Id. at 2. The F BI also informed pla intiff “about the possibili ty

of . . . re ducingthe scope of his reque st in order to re duce the amount of fe es or . . . pa yingno thi ngand

re c e ivi ngon ly

the fi rs t 10 0 p a g e s o f r e sp on siv e re c or ds .” Re ply to “Plaintiff’s Reply

in Opposition t o Renewe d Motion to Dism iss or, in the Alternative, f or Summary Judg me nt” [#43 ], E x. 3 ( “ Ha rd y I IDe c l.” ) ¶

6; seeSupp. Hardy

Dec l., Ex . K at 2-3. Plaintiff did not respond to the FB I ’s April 9, 2008 letter w ithin the tim e limit specified,
seeSup p. Ha

rd y De c l., Ex. K

at 3, and , a c c or din g ly , th e F B I“ re le a se d 1 00 pa g e s in re sp on se to pla int if f’ s Jan ua ry 15 , 2 00 5 F OIA/ Pr iva c y

Ac t r e qu e st t o th e PGF O. ” Ha rd y I IDe c l. ¶ 8. Th e se 6 100 pag es re prese nted “the numbe r of r esponsive pag es which must be pr ovided to a noncommerc ial reque ster for

fre e pursua

nt to 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d)(3)( i).” Id. ¶ 9. 4. Plaintiff’s Opposition Pla int if f’ s r e sp on se to d e fe nd ants ’ r e ne we d s umm ary jud g me nt m oti on

is a “ Mo tio n to Advanc e Costs of FB Iand EOU SA Documents” [#35]. He “moves the Court to orde r that theThe Court notes that plaintiff’ s application to proce ed in f or ma pa up e ris in t

his 7 ac t i o nwa s gra n t edb ef

o re i twa s d et erm i n edth ath e i s b arre d fr o mp ro ce ed i n g in f

or ma pa up e ris under the “thre e strikes” provision of the Prison L itigation Refor m Act, see28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
. See, e .g., Banks v. U

nited States Marshal , 274 Fe d. Appx. 631 (10th C ir. 2008) (de clar ing that Ba nks had ac cumulated f

our strikes for

purposes of 28 U .S.C. § 1915(g) with the dismiss al of tw o c on so lid ate d a

pp e a ls) ; Ba nk

s v . La pp in , No. 08-0152, 2008 WL2874193 (D.D.C. Jul y 25, 2 0 0 8 ) ( co n cl u d i n g th atp l ai n t i ff i s b arre d un d er 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 (g) fr o mp ro ce ed i n g in forma pa up e ris ); Banks v. Suthe rland , No. 08-0222, 2008 WL2758664 (S.D. Miss. J uly 11, 2008) (deny ing a pplication to proce ed in f or ma pa up e ris under 28 U .S.C. § 1915(g) ).

10 Un ite d St ate s a dv anc e c os ts f or the re le a se of

3, 20 5 d oc ume nts . . . o r w a ive the fe e , a nd to advanc e costs in the amount of $168.00 to the [EOUSA] for re lease of the re cords [plaintiff] soug ht in connection with this case a nd or wa ive the fe e.” Pl.’s Mot. to Advanc e Costs at 1; Plaintiff’s Reply

in Opposition t o Renewe d Motion to Dism iss or, in the Alternative f or Summary Judg me nt [# 38 ] (“ Pl. ’s Op p’ n” ) at 1- 2. He no te s th at he “ of c ours e wi ll r e ma in f

ull y lia ble fo r t he se fe e s thro ug h h is c on tin uin gob lig atio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. [§ ] 191 5. ” Pl. ’s Mo t. t o 7 Ad va nc e Cos ts at 1- 2. Pla int if f p re sume s th at th e re is s ome c onne c tio n b e tw e e n h is in forma pa up e ris status wi th r e sp e c t to pa y me nt o f t he c ivi l f ili ngfe e in t

his Court and his ob lig atio n to pay sear ch and duplication fees to the DO J with respec t to his FOIA and Privac y Act re quests. He is mistaken. Gene rally , a plaintiff f

iling a c ivil action in a fede ral district must pay a fe e of $350. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court “may authorize the commenc ement . . of
any su it .
. . wi tho ut p re pa

y me nt o f f e e s . . . by a pe rs on wh o s ub mit s a

n a ff ida vit that in c lud e s a statement of a ll assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pa y such fe es.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) . Although the Court may allow a pr isoner to proc eed w ithout prepay ment of the filing fee , he “sha ll be require d to pay the full amount of a f

iling fe e,” ty

pically with an initial partial pa y ment and monthly

installment pay

ments in amounts determined by the balanc e in the11

prisoner’ s trust fund acc ount. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). “In no event sha ll the filing fe e collec ted exceed the a

mount of fee s permitted by statute for the commence ment of a c ivil action.” 28 U. S.C. § 1 91 5( c ). No thi ngin t he statut e a

uth or ize s th e Court

to c oll e c t f

un ds fr om a

pr iso ne r i n
e xce ss o f t

he $3 50 fi lin gfe e , a

nd 28 U. S.C. § 1 91 5 d oe s n ot a uth or ize the Court

to a dv anc e c os ts
a sso c iate d w itha

pr iso ne r p la int if

f’ s F OIA o r P ri va c y

Ac t r e qu e sts . In the alter

native, plaintiff a sserts that “he has sent a r equest to the F BI reque sting that the fe e s b e wa ive d. ” Pl. ’s Op p’ n at 2. He argue s th at w a ive r o f f e e s is in t he pu bli c int e re st b e c a

us e the re lease of the re quested re cords would “ see that justi ce is done ” with re spect to his criminal
case . Renewe d Motion to Advance Costs of F BI and EOU SA Documents [#41] at 1. Acc ording to p la int if f, the re qu e ste d r e c or ds inc lud e inf or matio n th at sh ou ld h ave be e n d isc los e d to him befor e or dur ing his c riminal trial. See id. He c laims to have “a particula rized need f

or the wi th hel d d ocu men ts for

hi s cr im in al app eal s an d t o s ho w an ot her c ou rtth e it ems th e FBI confiscated with and without a for feiture order and author ity

to offset the a

mount of money Ba nks is liable for in re stitut ion.” Pl.’s Mot. to Advance Costs at 1 (e mphasis in origina l). Fur ther, he asser

ts that “any

thing less” than an or der dire ctingthe immediate re lease of the
re qu e ste d r e c or ds in t

he ir e nti re ty “ wo uld vio late [pla int if

f’ s] D ue Pr oc e ss r ig hts un de r t he F if th Amendment and e ffe ct [sic] the fundamental fa irness of [plaintiff’s] criminal and this civil and the 22 55 c ivi l pr oc e e din g ” be c a us e his “ lib e rt

y is at st ake .” Pla int if

f’ s Re ply to D e fe nd ants ’ Me mor and

um i n O pp os iti on

to P la int if

f B ank s’ “ Re ne we d M oti on to A dv anc e Mo tio n to Advanc e Costs of FB Iand EOU SA Documents” [#44] at 1. Given this contrived conne ction betwee n this civil action and his criminal ca se and post-c onviction proce eding s, plaintiff demands pa

y ment of the a ssessed sea

rch a nd duplication fee s under the Criminal Just ice Ac t. Id
.12

at 2. His arguments are not persuasive
. First, the F BI

did not rece ive a r equest for waiver of fe es, seeHar dy

I IDec l. ¶ 10, and nothing in the r ecor d of this case sug g ests that plaintiff ava iled himself of options for re ducing the scope of his reque st in order to re duce the amount of fe es, see id. ¶ 15. Second, eve n if plaintiff had r equeste d a fe e wa iver a nd if the re quested re cords we re rele vant to his criminal case or post-convic tion procee dings, the se fa cts do not establish that disclosure of the rec ords is in the public interest. DOJ regulations provide for the reduc tion or waiver of fe es whe re a

component dete rmines, base d on all available information, that the
re qu e ste r h a s d e mon str ate d th at:

(i ) Di scl os ur e of

the re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n is in t he pu bli c int e re st b e c a

us e it i s li ke ly

to c on tr ibute signif

ic antl y to p ub lic understandingof the ope rations o r activities of the g overnme nt, and (ii) Disclosure of

the infor m ati on is not primarily in the commerc ial interest of the reque ster. 28 C.F .R. § 1 6. 11 (k )( 1) . T o d e te rm ine wh e the r t he fi rs t f e e wa ive r r e qu ir e me nt i s me t, components will consider, a mong othe r fa ctors, “[w]hether disclosure of the re quested information will contribute to ‘public under standing .’” 28 C.F .R. § 16.11(k)(2) (iii). “The disclosure must contribute to the unde rstandingof a r easona bly broad a udience of per sons interested in the subje ct, as opposed to the individual under standing of the re quester.” Id. A reque ster’s pr ivate intere st is not relevant to the fe e wa iver a naly sis, and an attac k on a cr iminal conviction is a private interest. See M cClain v. United States Dep’ t of Justice , 13 F.3d 220, 220- 2 1 (7 thC i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ( d en yi n g fe e w ai v er re qu es to f i n d i gen tp ri s o n er wh o wa s p urs u i n g a c h al l en ge to h is c ri min a l c onvic tio n u sin gF B Ire c or ds a bo ut h ims e lf

); Harrington v. Dep’ t of Justice , No.Acc ordingto Progr am Statement 1351.05, Relea se of Information (9/19/2002), 8 (continued...) 13 06-0254, 2007 WL625853, at *4 (D.D .C. Feb. 27, 2007)
. Third, the Criminal J ustice Ac t provides for the appointment of counse l to repre sent indige nt criminal defe ndants and for pay ment to these attorne y s for time and se rvice s rende red. See18 U. S.C. § 3 00 6A (a ), (d )( 5) . Pl a int if f i s n ot a n atto rn e y , a

nd thi s c ivi l a c tio n is no t a
c ri min a l pr oc e e din gto whic h th e Cr imi na l Just ic e Ac t a pp lie s. Th e Court

c on c lud e s th at pl a int if

f f a ile d to e xha

us t hi s a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s w ith respe ct to his FOIA and Privac y Act re quests to the FB Ibeca use he f ailed to pay

duplication fee s. The Court g rants the de fenda nts’ motion as to Count s Three and F our of the Complaint, and plaintiff’s re quest for the Court to advance fee s is denied.

B. TheBO

P’ s R esp on seto P lai nti

ff’ s F OI A a nd Pr iv ac yAc t R e qu ests Plaintiff submit ted three reque sts to the BOP under the FOIA and the Priva cy Act. De fs.’ R e n e w e d M o t . , S u p p l e m e n t a l D e c l ar at i o no f K ath l e e nQ u i g l e y

( “ S u p p . Q u i g l e y

D e c l
. ” ) ¶ 3
. In the first, assig ned Reque st Number 2006-00951, pla intiff soug ht “eve ry rec ord in [BOP’s] sy stem about [him self], that pertains to [him ], or mentions [ him] by name.” Def

s.’ Mot., Dec laration of Kathlee n Quig ley

(“Q uigle y

Dec l.”) ¶ 4 & Ex . 1 (September 24, 2005 FOIA/PA Request), Ex. 2 (Nove mber 22, 2005 letter from H.J. S adowski, Reg ional Counsel, Northea st Regiona l Office , BO P). Acc ordingto the BO P’s supplemental dec laration, an inmate’s broa d reque st for re cords about himself “is routinely interpre ted as see king r ecor ds maintained in [that] inmate’s Centra l and Medic al Files, be cause those sy stems of rec ords ar e the likely place s to locate a

ny rec ords reg ardingan inmate.” Supp. Quigley Dec l. ¶ 4. An inmate’s Centra l and Medica l Files

8(...continued) 8 A r e qu e st f

or “ my re c or ds ,” “ a ll my re c or ds ,” or sim ila r w or din gsh a ll be interpr eted a s a re quest for a copy of Inmate Centra l File re cords and Medic al File r ecor ds curr ently maintained at the inmate ’s ins tit uti on of c on fi ne me nt o r, in the c a se of fo rm e r i nmate s, in t

he la st ins tit uti on of c on fi ne me nt. Id. , Part Four , para . 27.c. 14 ordinarily are located a

t the place of his incar cer ation, id ., and, ac cording ly , BO P staff for war ded pla int if f’ s F OIA r e qu e st t o th e Un ite d St ate s Pe nit e nti ary Cana an ( “ USP Cana an” ) i n Way mart , Pennsylvania, the plac e of his inca rce ration at that time. Id. Staff at USP Canaa n located a

nd copied plaintiff’ s entire Centra l and Medica l files, Quig ley Dec l. ¶ 7, and the B OP relea sed 103 pag es in full and withheld four pag es in full under F OIA Exempti ons 5, 6, 7(C), and 7( F)
. Id . ¶ 8. Pla int if

f’ s se c on d r e qu e st, a ssi g ne d Re qu e st Numb e r 2 00 6- 06 38 4, so ug ht “ a ll d ata ba se
rec ords maintained by

the B OP reg ardingPlaintiff.” Supp. Quigle y Dec l. ¶ 7; Quig ley

Dec l. ¶ 10 & Ex. 5 (R e ne we d F OIA/ PA R e qu e st) . B e c a us e the B OP “ uti lize s th e Se ntr y data ba se a s it s trac king a nd information sy stem for inmate- related information,” its staff “per formed a

number of data base se arc h functions that provide[d] a printout of all inmate[-] related information on Sentry” per

taining to plaintiff. Supp. Quig ley Dec l. ¶ 7. The B OP relea sed to plaintiff 23 pag es in full on J une 19, 2006. Quig ley Dec l. ¶ 11 & Ex . 6 (June 19, 2006 letter from H.J. Sadowski). In his third request, assig ned Reque st Number 2006-07658, pla intiff soug ht “all ce ntral fi le re c or ds ma int a ine d b y the B OP r e g ard ing[him se lf ].” Sup p. Qu ig le y

De c l. ¶ 8; Q uig le y

De c l. ¶ 12. B y letter dated J une 28, 2006, the B OP informed plaintiff that “ he may seek loc al re view of his [ C] entra l [ F]ile by

contac ting staf

f at USP Canaan to make arr ang ements for revie w.” Supp. Quig ley Dec l. ¶ 9.Th e re c or d d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th at th e B OP e ve r a sse sse d s e arc h o r d up lic atio n f

e e s, 9 demande d advanc e pay

ment of fe es, or other

wise re lied on plaintiff’s non-pa y ment of fe es to any oth e r c omp on e nt t o d e ny

his re qu e sts to t

he B OP. Th e Court

de nie s d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on to dis mis s p la int if

f’ s F OIA a

nd Pr iva c y Ac t c la ims a g a ins t th e B OP o n th e g ro un d th at he fa ile d to pay sear ch and duplication fees to the EO USA and the F BI
. 15 Plaintiff opposes the B OP’s motion by asser ting, without supportingdecla rations or exhibi ts, that its “searc h was fa r fr om adequate.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 1. He cla ims that he “neve r
rec eived a

ny of the re quested files,” and that he ha s “filed multiple reque sts” without success. Id. The a g ency ’s dec larations are pr esumed to be submitted in g ood faith and pla intiff’s mere speculation cannot re but the presumption. See Safe Card Servs., Inc . v. Sec . &Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation and inter nal quotation marks omitted). The fac tual asser

tions in t he B OP’s decla

rations ar e ac cepte d as true a bsent a showingby

plaintiff of his own decla

rations or doc umentary

evidenc e to the contr ary . Ne al v . Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The Court conc ludes that the B OP has conduc ted a r easona ble sea rch f or re cords
re sp on siv e to p la int if

f’ s thre e F OIA r e qu e sts . A t th is s ta g e , th e Court or din ari ly

wo uld a sse ss whether the B OP properly

withheld in full four pag es of r ecor ds found in plaintiff’s Centra l and Medica l Files under

FOIA Exempti ons 5, 6, 7(C), and 7( F) . Quig ley Dec l. ¶ 8. Missing fr om the
curr ent re cord is any

explanation for these w ithholdings, and the Court de nies summary judgme nt
on thi s g ro un d a s to Counts Ni ne and Te n o f t he Com pla int
. 9 C. Plainti ff’s Requests to the USPI S Plaintiff submit ted three separ ate r equests to the USPI S under the F OIA and the Priva cy Act. SeeDef

s.’ Mot., Dec laration of L awr ence Katz (“Katz Decl.”) ¶ ¶ 5, 15-16. On Dec ember

28, 2004, plaintiff submitted a reque st to the USP I S under the F OIA and16

the Privacy

Act for information about himself, nine individuals, and e ntities he called V ampire Nation, Hexag on L L C, Hexagon Rec ords, Sear ch Sy ndicate, I nc., Mer akesh Armano, HL L C and HL C. Defs.’ Mot., De clar ation of L awr ence Katz (“Katz Decl.”), Ex. A (De cembe r 28, 2004 FOIA/PA Request) at 1-2. T he USPI S assigne d the re quest FO I A No. 2005-F PI S-00020, id. , E x. B ( J anuar y 7, 2005 letter fr om L . Fr eema n, Information Disclosure Tec hnician, USPI S), and “interpr eted [plaintiff’s] query to be in connec tion with C ase N o. 0583-1407269-ECMT(1) .” Id. , Ex . C (J anuar

y 13, 2005 letter fr om L . Fr eema n) at 1. Subsequently , the UPI S informed plaintiff that the information he r equeste d “wa s . . . exempt from mandatory disclosure since it consisted of investig atory

rec ords compiled for

law enf orce ment purpose[s] . . . pursuant to [Ex emption 7(A)], wher e re lease . . . could re asonably be expected to inter fer e with enf orce ment proce eding s.” Katz Decl. ¶ 7. On April 14, 2005, the USPI S “disclosed 99 pag es of r ecor d materia l” af ter re dacting
c e rt a in i nf

or matio n und e r F OIA E xemp tio ns 5, 6, 7( C) , 7 (D ), and 7( E) . K atz D e c l. ¶

9; see id. , Ex . F ( April 14, 2005 letter f rom L . Fr eema

n). In addition, the USPI S withheld in full 187 page s of re cords unde r F OIA Exempti ons 2, 3, 6, 7(C), and 7( E). Id. ¶ 1 0. Re fe rr e d to the EO USA
wer e two pag es of r ecor ds which had or iginated there
. Id. ¶ 1 1; se e id ., Ex . G (Apr il 14, 2005 letter fr om L . Fr eema

n to M.A. O’Rourke, A ssistant Director, F OIA/PA Unit, EOUSA). Plaintiff submit ted a se cond re quest to the USPI S on J uly 11, 2005. Katz Decl. ¶

15 & Ex . M (J uly

11, 2005 FOIA/PA Request). Plaintiff soug ht information perta ining to entities he identified as VCD STREET, Intelli-soft, Global Busine ss Sy stem, GHS Sy stems, Microsharp, ADW I nternational, I nc., and thr ee individuals. Id. , E x. M at 1. Th e USP I S r e sp on de d to pla int if f’ s r e qu e st, a ssi g ne d F OIA N o. 20 05 -F I S- 00 18 0, by re fe re nc inghis pr ior

re qu e st a nd itsTh e c onne c tio n b e tw e e n F OIA N os . 2 00 5- F PI S- 00 02 0 a nd 20 05 -F I S- 00 18 0 is 10 unclea r, as the subje cts of the two r equests diffe r. Th e fa c t th at pl a int if

f h a s su bmi tte d to the Court

a Ce rt if ic atio n o f I de nti ty

fo rm , 11 seePl.’s Reply , Attach. ( Certification of I dentity signe d on J anuar

y 16, 2009), does not disturb the Court’s prior r

uling. Exhaustion of administrative must occur “ befor e an individual may seek relief in the courts.” Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 61-62 (empha sis added). 17 J anuar y 13, 2005 response
. Id. ¶ 15. “[T]he rec ords [plainti ff] sought r elated to a n 10 investigation which was still open,” and the USPI S “denied his re quest pursuant to [Ex emption] 7(A).” Id. & E x . N (August 5, 2005 letter from T.A . Warner, I nformation Disclosure Tec hnician, USPI S). In addition, with respec t to the three individuals about whom he sought information, the USPI S informed plaintiff that he must obtain and submit to the USPI S their written conse nt prior to disclosure of a

ny rec ords. Id . ¶ 15. Plaintiff submit ted a third re quest on Marc h 14, 2006. SeeKatz Decl. ¶ 16. Refer encing FOIA No. 2005-F PI S-00020, plaintiff indicated that he was “ rene wing[hi s] request for r ecor ds . . . relating to an ope n investigation that could not be disclosed,” a nd upon lear

ning that the inv e sti g atio n h a d b e e n c los e d, pla int if f “ re qu e st[e d] e ve ry

re c or d n ot p re vio us ly

dis c los e d to [hi m] , perta ining to [him] or that mentions [hi s] name.” Id. , E x. O ( Ma rc h 1 4, 20 06 F OIA/ PA Request). The USPS assig ned the r equest F OIA No. 2006-F PI S-00167. See id. , Ex . P (Marc h 24, 2006 letter fr om M.R. Baxter, Information Disclosure Tec hnician, USPI S). The Court
a lr e a dy ha s d e c ide d th at pl a int if

f f a ile d to e xha

us t hi s a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s w ithre sp e c t to FOIA No. 2006-F PI S-00167 beca use he f ailed to submit a suitable verific ation of his identity as is require d under 39 C.F .R. § 266.6(b)(2)
. Banks , 538 F. Supp. 2d at 234-35. 11 The USPI S takes the position that the only alleg ations of the Complaint pertainingto the USPS wer e that he “ propounded a rene wed r equest to the [USPI S] ” both under the FO I A and the Privacy Act, and that the USPI S “did not provide the re quested re cords.” Compl. ¶¶ 13, 1618

(Counts Five a

nd Six ). The U SPI S argues that the re newe d reque st to which he re fer red “ was the Marc h 26, 2006 reque st,” Def .’s Renew ed Mot. at 1 n.1 (e mphasis in origina l), such that the Court’s prior ruling“re solved all claims set out in the Complaint aga inst USP I S.” Id. Plaintiff, ho we ve r, ma int a ins “ that th e [USPI S] is s til l a pa rt y he re in” and

re ite ra te s h is i nte re st i n obtaining the rec ords he ha s reque sted from the U SPI S. Pl .’s Reply at 1. By assig ning a

new r equest number

to eac h of plaintiff’s thre e re quests, the Court presumes that the reque sts are se parate. I f the re quests are indeed se parate, dismissal of the third reque st, FOIA No. 2006-F PI S-00167, appea rs to have no impac t on the others. I f, howe ver, the USP I S ha s tr e ate d th e se c on d a nd thi rd re qu e sts , F OIA N os . 2 00 5- F PI S- 00 02 0 a nd 20 05 -F I S00180, as if they

wer e re lated to or c ontinuations of the first reque st, its s upporting decla ration do e s n ot e sta

bli shthi s p oint. F ur

the rm or e , if

the fi rs t and

se c on d r e qu e sts we re no t pr op e rl y befor e the Court, the r easons f or addr essingthem in defe ndants’ initial disposit ive motion are
un c le ar. L a stl y , w ithre sp e c t to the fi rs t r e qu e st, F OIA N o. 20 05 -F PI S- 00 02 0, de fe nd ants ’
r e n e w e d m o t i o nd o e s n o ta d dr e s s th e d e f i c i e n c y i d e n t i f i e d i nth e C o urt ’ s p r i o r

r u l i n g : th e U S P IS

“ do [es ] not

de mon str ate that [it] c on du c te d a re a so na ble se arc h f

or re c or ds re sp on siv e to plaintiff’s F OIA and Privac y Act re quest[] .” Banks , 538 F. Supp. 2d at 238. Ac cording ly , the Court denies summary

judgme nt as to Counts Five and Six of the Complaint.

I I I . CONCLUSI ON Th e Court

c on c lud e s th at pl a int if

f f a ile d to e xha

us t a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s a s to his F OIA a nd Pr iva c y Ac t r e qu e sts to t

he F B Iand

tha t th e B OP c on du c te d a

re a so na ble and a de qu ate
sear ch for rec ords re sponsive to plaintiff’s re quests. Def endants’ motion will be g rante d in part on these g rounds, and the motion will be denied w ithout prejudice in all other r espec ts.19

An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.
Signed: EMMET G. SUL L I VAN

Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: Marc h 23, 2009