MARK ALAN LANE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et ai., 

Defendants. 

) Civil Action No. 08-1269 (RJL) 

) 

) 

) 

MEMORANDUM 

~ 

OPINION 

(June ~, 2009) 

In this civil action brought under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, plaintiff, proceeding 

pro se, alleges that the Bureau of Prisons' reliance on inaccurate information in his presentence 

investigation report has resulted in adverse decisions regarding his custody. I He seeks 

"amendment of the 2001 presentence report and money damages[.]" Compl at 4. Defendants 

move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or for 

summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 [Dkt. No. 13]; plaintiff moves for summary judgment 

[Dkt. No. 17]. Because BOP inmate records are exempt from the Privacy Act's amendment and 

damages provisions, and the Act provides no private right of action against the individually 

named defendants,2 the Court grants defendants' Rule 12(b)( 6) motion to dismiss and denies 

plaintiff s unsupported motion for summary judgment. 

I Plaintiff is a federal prisoner serving a sentence of 360 months' imprisonment imposed 

following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine 

and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. United States v. Lane, 52 Fed. Appx. 838 (7th 

Cir. 2002). 

2 In addition to BOP, plaintiff sues his warden, W.A. Sherrod, Administrator Harold 

Watts and Regional Director Michael K. Nalley. But see Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 

F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed the named individual 

defendants because no cause of action exists that would entitle appellant to relief from them 

under the Privacy Act[.]") (citations omitted). 
A court may dismiss a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted if, assuming the alleged facts to be true and drawing all inferences in the 

plaintiffs favor, it appears that the plaintiff can prove no facts "consistent with the allegations in 

the complaint" to support the claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,563, 127 

S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). "[T]he pleadings [must] suggest a 'plausible' scenario to 'sho[w] that 

the pleader is entitled to relief[.]'" Tooley v. Napolitano, 556 F.3d 836, 839 (D.C. Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1966). 

The Privacy Act requires federal agencies to maintain records used in making 

determinations "with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably 

necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination [about the individual] .... " 5 

U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). Section 552a(d) allows individuals access to agency records about 

themselves and to request the amendment of records "they believe to be inaccurate, irrelevant, 

untimely, or incomplete." Doe v. Federal Bureau o/Investigation, 936 F.2d 1346,1350 (D.C. 

Cir. 1991). Subsections (g)(1)(A) and (C) authorize civil actions to enforce the amendment and 

accuracy requirements. In addition, subsection (g)(4) provides for monetary damages, costs and 

attorneys' fees where the agency is shown to have acted intentionally or willfully. See Doe, 936 

F.2d at 1350; accord Deters v. United States Parole Commission, 85 F.3d 655,660-61 (D.C. Cir. 

1996); Sellers v. Bureau o/Prisons, 959 F.2d 307, 310-12 (D.C. Cir. 1992). An agency may be 

liable for "actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure" to 

maintain accurate records and "consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the 

individual. ... " 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C) and (g)(4)(A). 

2 
The Privacy Act authorizes law enforcement agencies to exempt "any system of records 

within the agency" from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, including subsection(g). 5 U.S.C. 

§ 522a m(2). It is established that BOP has exempted its Inmate Central Records System 

containing, among other records, presentence investigation reports, from the Privacy Act's 

accuracy and amendment requirements (subsections (d) and (e)(5)) and from its damages 

provision (subsection (g)). See 28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a)(4); White v. United States Probation Office, 

148 F.3d 1124, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) ("Under regulations ... presentence reports 

and BOP inmate records systems are exempt from the amendment provisions of the Act"); 

accord Martinez, 444 F.3d at 624 ("The BOP has exempted its Inmate Central Record System 

from the accuracy provisions of the Privacy Act[.]") (citations omitted). Plaintiff therefore fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ramirez v. Dep't of Justice, 594 F. 

Supp.2d 58, 65 (D.D.C. 2009) ("Having exempted its records from the substantive provision 

regarding the agency's recordkeeping obligations, BOP effectively deprives litigants of a remedy 

for any harm caused by the agency's substandard recordkeeping."); Lopez v. Huff, 508 F. Supp.2d 

71,77 (D.D.C. 2007) ("To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to have his [presentence 

investigation report] amended, such relief is not available because the BOP has properly 

exempted its inmate central files, where such documents are kept, from the [Privacy Act's] 

amendment requirements.") (citations omitted). 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiffs 

motion for summary judgment is denied. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum 

Opinion. ~ 

RICH . LEON 

United States District Judge 

3