UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

____________________________________) LATCHMIE TO OLASPRASHAD, ) ) P la in t if

f, )

) v. ) C iv. Ac ti on N o. 09 -0 31 7 ( ESH) ) BU RE AUOF P RI SON S e t al . , )

) De fend ant s. ) ____________________________________)
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION In this action broug ht under the Constitution and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, p l ai n t i ff , a f ed er al p ri s o n er

p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , a lle g e s th at th e B ur e a u o f P ri so ns (“ B OP” ) i s
ma int a ini nga

fa lse and ina c c ur ate inv e sti g ativ e re po rt a bo ut h im that is a dv e rs e ly a ff e c tin ghis
c u s t o dy. H e a l s o a c c u s e s B O P c o r r e c t i o n s o f

f i c e r s o f v i o l at i n gh i s F i r s tA m e n dm e n tr i g h t s b y reta liating a g ainst him for filing grieva nces a nd communicatingwith public officials. In addition to the BO P, plaintiff names as de fenda nts severa l high- level B OP officials, his war den and a deputy inspector g ener al at the De partment of Justice. Def endants move to dismiss under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12 ( b)(1) for lac k of subject matter jur isdiction, Rul e 12(b) (5) f or insufficie nt service of proc ess and Rule 12(b) (6) f or failure to state a c laim or, in the alternative, for summary judgme nt under Rule 56. Upon
c on sid e ratio n o f t

he pa rt ie s’ su bmi ssi on s a

nd the e nti re re c or d, the Court wi ll gra nt d e fe nd ants ’ mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a s to the Pr iva c y Ac t c la im a

nd tr ans fe r t he re ma ind e r o f t

he c a se t o th e U n i t e d

S t at e s D i s tr i c tC o urtf

o r th e D i s tr i c to f

N e wJ e r s e y.2 I. BACKG ROUND Plaintiff is serving a life se ntence curr ently at the F eder al Corre ctional Institut ion in Fort Dix , New Jersey . He wor ked in the food se rvice s depar tment from 2002 to May

2008, when he
was re assig ned to the g arde ning c rew , and is curr ently workingas an or derly . (De f.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts Not in Genuine D ispute ¶ 6.) On A pril 9, 2002, plaintiff filed a grieva nce about an incide nt at work a nd the workingconditions in the commissary . He a lso acc used a staf f
me mbe r, Rob e rt

Wri g ht, of

re ta liatin ga g a ins t hi m f

or a g ri e va nc e pla int if

f h a d f ile d a g a ins t Wright in 2000. (

Id . ¶ 1; Compl at 5-8.) An investig ation conducte d by BO P’s Office of Interna l Affa irs found plaintiff’s c laims of staff misconduc t unsubstantiated. (Compl., Ex . 1.) The re sulting Specia l I nvestig ative Servic es (“ SI S”) re port dated A pril 14, 2003, is the
su bje c t of the Pr iva c y

Ac t c la im. On

July 26 , 2 00 5, pla int if

f f ile d a g ri e va nc e wi th h is w ard e n in which he a ccuse d the SI S investigator of falsify ing the repor

t by indicatingthat plaintiff had lied. (De cl. of Car oly

n L anphea

r [Dkt. No. 21-2], Ex . A.) On Aug ust 19, 2005, the warde n informed plaintiff that an investig ation of his alleg ations was under way but that he would not be informe d of the re sults. (

Id .) B etwee n August 2005 and J uly 2008, plaintiff filed g rieva nces a nd administrative appe als cove ringvarious issues, which w ere ultimately reje cted a s untimely

filed. (L anphea r De cl. ¶¶ 7- 8.) Plaintiff filed this action on F ebrua ry 19, 2009. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. The Court Ha s Subject Matter Jurisdiction Although de fenda

nts have invoked F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) as a basis for dismissal, they have not pr esente d a supportingargument. The Court is satisfied that it has orig inal jurisdiction3

over this ac tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, inasmuch as the c omplaint arises under the Constitut ion and fe dera l law. The motion to dismis s for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction therefor e is denied. B
. De fe nd ants are Entit le d to Judg me nt o n th e Pr iva c y Ac t Cla im Def endants a ssert that plaintiff fa iled to properly exhaust his admini strative re medies on the Privacy

Act cla im and that the claim is barr ed by the Act’ s two-y ear

statute of limitations. Th e Pr iva c y

Ac t a uth or ize s a

laws uit to enforc e any

liability cre ated unde r this section .
. . [i f it is] broug ht . . . within two y ear s from the date on which the cause of action arises, except that wher e an a g ency ha s mate ri a lly

and wi llf ull y mis re pr e se nte d a

ny in for mation r e qu ir e d und e r t his se c tion t o b e dis c los e d to an in div idu a l and the inf or matio n s o mi sr e pr e se nte d is mate ri a l to e sta

bli sh me nt o f t

he lia bil ity of t he a g e nc y

to t he ind ivi du a l un de r t

his section, the a ction may

be brought at any time w ithin two y ear s afte r discovery by the individual of the misrepre sentation. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g )(5)
. Se e Tije rin a v . W alte rs , 821 F.2d 789, 798 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that the Privacy

Act' s statute of limitations begins to run whe n “the plaintiff know s or should know of the a lle g e d v iol atio n” ). Pla int if f w a s a wa re of the a lle g e dly

ina c c ur ate SI S r e po rt

by Au g us t 2005 when he filed his g rieva nce. H is ex hibits i nclude the f inal ag ency

action of Ma

rch 16, 20 06 , r e je c tin ghis g ri e va

nc e a s unti me ly . ( Pl. ’s Op p’ n, Ex. 1 4. ) P la int if f t he re fo re ha d unti l Marc h 1 6, 20 08 , to fi le a

laws uit ba se d o n th is c la im. B e c a us e he did

no t f ile thi s a c tio n unti l Fe bruar y 2009, the Court finds the Privacy Act cla im to be time-barr ed. It theref ore w ill not
a dd re ss whe the r p la int if

f p ro pe rl y e xha us te d h is a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s. C. Th is V e nu e is Impr op e r f or L iti g atin gPla int if

f’ s Surv ivi ngCla im As to the rema ining c laim of reta liation, defenda nts corre ctly

asser t that any claim base d
o na c t s th ato c c ur

r e d p r i o r t o D e c e mb e r

2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , ar e b ar

r e d b y res judicata beca

use plaintiff
r a i s e d o r c o u l d h av e r a i s e d

th o s e c l a i m s i na

p r i o r c i v i l a c t i o ni nth e D i s tr i c to f N e wJ e r s e y. De f. ’s Me m. at 27 -2 8 & Ex. D (O pin ion ); see Toolasprashad v. W right , 232 Fe d.Appx. 208 (3dBa sed on plaintiff’s suppleme ntal submissi ons that the Court has allowed to be filed, 1 the alleg ed re taliatory

conduct a

ppear s to be ong oing a

t FCIFor t Dix
. 4 Cir. 2007) (af

firmingdistrict court ruling ); Hardison v. Alex ander , 6 55 F .2 d 1 28 1, 12 88 (D .C. Cir. 1981) (" [T] he par

ties to a suit and their privies a re bound by

a fina l judgment a

nd may not
re lit ig ate any

g ro un d f or re lie f whic h th e y

a lr e a dy have ha d a

n o pp or tun ity to l iti g ate -- e ve n if they chose not to exploitthat opportunity --whe ther the initial judg ment was e rrone ous or not.") As to a ny surv ivi ngre ta liatio n c la ims , d e fe nd ants c or re c tly argue that th is v e nu e is improper f

or litigating those c laims beca use none of

the alleg ed misconduct oc curr ed in the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (desig natingthe prope r venue as the judicial district where a substantial par t of the eve nts occurr ed). Mor eover , defe ndants corr ectly argue that this Court l acks pe rsonal jurisdiction over the officia ls at FCI For t Dix whom plaintiff dir e c tly imp lic ate s in

the a lle g e d r e ta liator

y c on du c t and

a g a ins t w ho m su c h a

c la im i s p ro pe rl y br ou g ht. See Came ron v. Thornburgh , 9 83 F .2 d 2 53 , 2 58 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 3) (f ind ingthat a 1 fede ral off

icial may be held pe rsonally

liable under Bivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Fe de ra l B ur e au of N

arc oti cs, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), only for unc onstitut ional conduct in which he was pe rsonally

and dire ctly

involved). For the fore g oing r easons, the Court grants def endants’ motion for summar y judgme nt as to the Privacy

Act cla im and transfe rs the re mainder of the ca se to the District of Ne w J erse y . A separ ate Or der a ccompa

nies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ E LLEN S E G A L H U V E LLE Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: September

29, 2009