Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/641/1141/1483262/
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 18:11:10
Document Index: 200135408

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1915', '§ 552', '§ 552']

Crooker v. United States Marshals Service, 641 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1986) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › District of Columbia › District of Columbia › 1986 › Crooker v. United States Marshals Service
Crooker v. United States Marshals Service, 641 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1986)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia - 641 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1986)
641 F. Supp. 1141 (1986)
Michael Alan CROOKER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 86-0810.
*1142 Michael Alan Crooker, pro se.
Michael Alan Crooker is a pro se plaintiff who is currently incarcerated at the federal penitentiary in Petersburg, Virginia. Under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, Crooker seeks an order directing defendant United States Marshals Service to produce agency records maintained by the Service in his name. The matter is before the Court on defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b) (1) and 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In consideration of the entire record in this case, the Court shall grant defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The Court has conducted an exhaustive survey of federal court dockets to determine the number of FOIA and/or Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) suits filed historically by plaintiff. This survey reveals that Crooker has become somewhat of an expert in FOIA/Privacy Act litigation. Since 1978, Crooker has filed at least sixty such actions.[1]See infra, Tables A-F.
On March 24, 1983, defendant in the present FOIA action received a letter from the plaintiff, which requested any records that were maintained by the defendant in his name. The Service construed Crooker's letter as a Privacy Act request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The Service had a significant backlog of prior requests, and responded to such requests in the order in which they were received. Crooker v. United States Marshals Service, 577 F. Supp. 1217 (D.D.C.1983). When the Service responded to plaintiff's request in April of 1983, it made plaintiff aware of its *1143 backlog, but advised him that it had begun to process his request. Id. Dissatisfied with the Service's response, Crooker filed suit in this Court (C.A. No. 83-1648). On October 28, 1983, Judge June Green of this Court granted the Service's motion to dismiss, because Crooker had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 1217-18. Dismissal was without prejudice.
Subsequently, Crooker filed in this Court another FOIA case against the Service (C.A. No. 85-2599), alleging that defendant had illegally withheld records maintained in Crooker's name. The Service moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, contending that the information sought by plaintiff had been validly withheld under FOIA exemptions (b) (5) ("interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters") and (b) (7) ("investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes"). Crooker failed to oppose the Service's motion. After evaluating the merits of the Service's exemption arguments, Judge Oberdorfer granted the motion in toto, and dismissed the FOIA complaint with prejudice (Order of December 16, 1985).
The res judicata implication of Judge Oberdorfer's order (see also Memorandum Opinion of December 16, 1985) is obvious with respect to the present FOIA action. Moreover, Crooker has failed again to oppose a motion to dismiss filed by the Service.[2] Therefore, after evaluation of the complaint and the merits of defendant's unopposed motion, the Court shall grant the Service's motion, and enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice (again).
Furthermore, given the plethora of FOIA and/or Privacy Act suits filed by plaintiff over the last eight years, which name several agencies as defendants time and time again, see supra note 1 and accompanying text, and the fact that plaintiff fails routinely to oppose motions to dismiss, see, e.g., supra note 2; infra, Tables A-F), it is evident that Crooker's litigation efforts have been for purposes of harassment i.e., not exercised in good faith as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Accordingly, as a sanction under Rule 11, the Court shall enter an order requiring the plaintiff, when filing any further FOIA and/or Privacy Act complaints in this Court that name any of the aforementioned agencies as defendants, to attach thereto a memorandum of law stating why the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the intended suit (i.e., a memorandum showing that the FOIA or Privacy Act request has not been previously ruled upon by a district court).
A. TABLE OF AGENCY CASES .............................        1144
B. UNREPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ....   1144-1148
C. REPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ......   1148-1150
D. REPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS .........   1150-1151
E. UNREPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS .......        1152
OFFICES ...........................................        1153
Number of Cases filed in the   Number of Cases Appealed in the   1st and 2nd Circuit
AGENCY                            D.C. Circuit naming agency    D.C. Circuit naming agency       naming agency[*]
United States Department of Justice                 10                             2                          13
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-arms             8                             4                           2
Federal Bureau of Prisons                            5                             1                           1
United States Marshal's Service                      3                                                         2
Drug Enforcement Administration                      2                             1                           7
Federal Bureau of Investigation                      3                             1                           2
United States Parole Commission                      2
United States Secret Service                         2
Central Intelligence Agency                          2                                                         1
Office of the Pardon Attorney                        1
United States Postal Service                         1
Department of the Army                               1
United States Department of State                    1                             1
Internal Revenue Service                             1                             1
Office of the Attorney General                       1
Office of the Solicitor General                      1                                                         1
B. UNREPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
CASE                            AGENCY                            RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT                            DISPOSITION
1) Crooker v. Drug                 Drug Enforcement                  Crooker sought a copy of the "Clandestine Laboratory       Crooker filed a motion to
Enforcement                     Agency (DEA)                      Guide" in November, 1985. DEA acknowledged                 dismiss two weeks after
Agency C.A. No.                                                   the request, but Crooker had not received                  filing a suit.
86-0351                                                           the guide at the time he filed suit in February,
2) Crooker v. United               U.S. Parole Commission            Crooker sought records maintained under his name           Defendant's motion to
States Parole                                                     including those surrounding his National Parole            dismiss was granted in
Commission, C.A.                                                  Appeal in August, 1985. The request was acknowledged       that no documents had
No. 86-0352                                                       in October 1985. Fifty-seven pages of                      been withheld improperly.
documents were released to Crooker by the Parole
Commission in February, 1986. The remaining
documents were exempt from disclosure pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (2) and § 552(b) (5).
3) Crooker v. Federal              Federal Bureau of Investigations  Crooker requested an updated copy of the FBI index         J. Hogan granted unopposed
Bureau of Investigation,        (FBI)                             in December, 1985.                                         motion to dismiss
C.A.                                                                                                                         June 30, 1986.
No. 86-0516
4) Crooker v. Federal              Federal Bureau of                 In December, 1985, Crooker requested statistical           The case is pending before
Bureau of Prisons               Prisons                           data requiring population by region and institution,       J. Hogan
Civil Action                                                      the number of murders and violent crimes which
No. 86-0510                                                       have occurred in federal prisons institutions during
the past 10 years, and a report on the murder of
two corrections officers at Marion Prison in October,
5) Crooker v. United               U.S. Marshals Service             Crooker requested records maintained under his             Case before the Court;
States Marshals                                                   name in January, 1986                                      J. Hogan granted unopposed
Service C.A. No.                                                                                                             motion to dismiss
6) Crooker v. Federal              Federal Bureau of                 Crooker requested agency records concerning contracts      The case is pending before
Bureau of Prisons               Prisons                           between FCI Danbury and two corporations                   J. Hogan.
Civ.A. No.                                                        in January 1986. In his suit, Crooker contends
86-0811                                                           that the agency complies with FOIA requests only
after being sued.
7) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        Crooker requested records surrounding his arrest           Judge Oberdorfer dismissed
of Alcohol, Tobacco             and Firearms                      on explosive charges, along with other unnamed             the suit as being
and Firearms                    (BATF)                            records in October 1984. In December 1984,                 frivolous pursuant to 28
C.A. No. 85-1793                                                  BATF denied Crooker's request. Crooker appealed            U.S.C. § 1915(d) in that
and BATF denied the appeal in January 1985.                it was identical to the
Crooker filed suit.                                        complaint filed against
BATF in Civil Action
No. 85-0615
8) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        Crooker requested documents maintained under his           The district court granted
of Alcohol, Tobacco             and Firearms                      name by BATF. Crooker's request was denied in              defendant's motion
and Firearms                    (BATF)                            reliance to Exception 7(A), in that there was an           for summary judgment
C.A. No. 85-0615                                                  ongoing investigation and all the requested documents      and dismissed the case.
Ct.App. No. 85-5930                                               were investigatory records, the release of                 On appeal the court vacated
which would interfere with the investigation               the summary judgment
case with instructions to
view the requested documents
individually to determine
7(A) applied rather
than invoking the exemption
with a blanket justification
were contained in
an investigatory file.
9) Crooker v. United               U.S. Secret Service               Crooker sought records maintained under his name           Judge Oberdorfer granted
States Secret Service                                             compiled since January 1, 1984. Crooker's appeal           defendant's motion
Civ.A. No.                                                        from the denial of his request was denied.                 for summary judgment
85-1967                                                           Crooker filed suit. The Secret Service had released        and ruled that the failure
some documents but withheld other documents                to disclose the requested
invoking exemptions under 5 U.S.C.                         information was
§ 552(b) (2), (b) (3), (b) (5), (b) (7), (b) (7) (C), and   warranted under the
(b) (7) (E).                                                 FOIA exemptions.
10) Crooker v. United               U.S. Parole Commission            In September 1984, Crooker requested records               Crooker's agency appeal
States Parole                                                     surrounding his parole revocation. Crooker's suit          was not denied, and upon
Commission,                                                       alleged that his appeal of the denial of his request       motion, defendant
Civ.A. No. 85-2248                                                was denied.                                                was granted a stay
Ct.App. No.                                                                                                                  pending the agency's decision
86-5153                                                                                                                      concerning
Crooker's appeal. On
appeal the Parole Commission
5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (5),
(7) (C) and (7) (D). Judge
Oberdorfer granted defendant's
an affidavit and attachment
thereafter granted defendant's
Crooker filed a motion to
vacate or modify the dismissal
order and a motion
Crooker then filed
a Motion for Clarification.
Since all the information
Crooker had been released
of litigation, Crooker's
was denied as being
moot. Crooker has appealed
the orders granting
for enlargement of time
in response to plaintiff's
dated March 6, and
March 12, 1986, and the
dated March 27, 1986.
The Court of Appeals ordered
Crooker on May 7,
1986, to show cause why
his appeal should not be
dismissed since his docketing
statement has not
11) Crooker v. United               U.S. Postal Service               Crooker requested certain criminal records concerning      Judge Oberdorfer granted
States Postal Service                                             himself. The agency informed Crooker that                  the defendant's motion
C.A. No. 85-2427                                                  search and duplication costs would have to be              for summary judgment
paid. Crooker's request for a waiver of the fee            and dismissed the
was denied. Crooker's agency appeal regarding              suit noting that denial of
the fee waiver was also denied. Crooker then               the fee waiver was not
filed suit.                                                arbitrary or capricious.
Crooker's motion to reconsider
12) Crooker v. Central              Central Intelligence              Crooker sought agency records concerning himself.          Judge Oberdorfer granted
Intelligence                    Agency (CIA)                      After a thorough search, the CIA determined that           defendant's motion
Agency C.A. No.                                                   the documents in their possession were exempt              for summary judgment,
85-2437                                                           from disclosure under FOIA exceptions (b) (3) and           which Crooker never opposed,
(b) (5). The remaining documents requested by               and dismissed the
Crooker originated in other agencies and the CIA           case. In a letter dated
referred Crooker's request to those agencies.              two days before Judge
Segregable portions of the CIA documents were              Oberdorfer's decision,
released to Crooker.                                       Crooker requested dismissal
13) Crooker v. United               U.S. Marshals Service             Crooker sought records maintained by the agency            Judge Oberdorfer granted
States Marshals                                                   under his name including records regarding his arrest      defendant's motion
Service C.A. No.                                                  and treatment by the U.S. Marshals Service                 for summary judgment
85-2599                                                           and all records related to his subsequent tort             and dismissed the case.
claim and suit. Crooker's request was denied in
part because the requested records were prepared
in connection with litigation, and thus, were protected
from disclosure under FOIA exemption 5
and Exemption d(5) of the Privacy Act. The documents
released to Crooker were excised pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. (b) (7) (C).
14) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        Crooker requested records pertaining to a substance        Judge Oberdorfer granted
of Alcohol, Tobacco             and Firearms                      called thermite. He also requested a fee                   defendant's motion
and Firearms                    (BATF)                            waiver which was denied. Crooker's appeal regarding        for summary judgment
C.A. No. 85-2600                                                  the fee waiver was also denied.                            and dismissed the case.
Ct. Appeals No.                                                                                                              Crooker was ordered on
86-5044                                                                                                                      April 7, 1986, to show
cause why his appeal
since his docketing statement
15) Crooker v. Civil                Department of Justice             Crooker sought copies of all records maintained            Crooker consented to defendant's
Rights Division of              (DOJ)                             under his name. The DOJ's response requesting              motion to dismiss,
the Department                                                    Crooker to satisfy the provisions of the Privacy           pending further administrative
of Justice C.A.                                                   Act so that his request could be processed was returned    processing
No. 85-3787                                                       by the U.S. Postal Service marked "Unclaimed,              of his FOIA request.
Returned to Sender".                                       The case was dismissed
16) Crooker v. Drug                 Drug Enforcement Administration   Crooker sought records maintained under his                Judge Green ruled that
Enforcement Administration      (DEA)                             name. DEA notified Crooker that it had no                  since the DEA had conducted
C.A.                                                              records which were responsive to his request.              two detailed
No. 83-1718                                                       Crooker then filed suit.                                   searches for the requested
(D.D.C.1984)                                                                                                                 records, the agency's
inability to find any requested
not be doubted. Once
the agency had complied
with the FOIA request,
Judge Green granted defendant's
17) Crooker v. Federal              Federal Bureau of                 Crooker sought a copy of his presentence report            Judge Green ruled that
Bureau of Prisons               Prisons, United States            in August 1980. Crooker had sought the same                the doctrine of res judicata
C.A. No. 83-2845                Department of Justice             presentence report in Crooker v. Office of the Pardon      applied to the case
Ct. of Appeals                                                    Attorney, 614 F.2d (2nd Cir. 1980) and in                   and granted defendant's
No. 84-5288                                                       Crooker v. U.S. Parole Commission, 730 F.2d 1              motion to dismiss. On
(D.C.Cir. Jan. 15,                                                (1st Cir.1984); Crooker was unsuccessful in both           appeal the court dismissed
1986)                                                             attempts.                                                  the case as being
moot in that Crooker
had already received the
presentence report as the
result of his suit filed
against the Parole Commission.
See 760 F.2d 1
18) Crooker v. Internal             Internal Revenue Service          Crooker sought copies of law enforcement records           The District Court granted
Revenue Service                 (IRS)                             maintained under his name and all records surrounding      defendant's motion
C.A. No. 83-2506                                                  the investigation of his tax returns for                   for summary judgment
Ct.App. No.                                                       the three preceding years. IRS released 14 documents       and ruled that the requested
84-5892                                                           in full and 19 in part. Crooker filed suit to              documents were
compel the release of the remaining documents.             exempt from disclosure
Thereafter, IRS released 8 additional documents            pursuant to FOIA exemptions
with portions deleted. Six of the eight documents          (b) (2), (b) (3),
had been released in part previously.                      and (b) (7) (C). Crooker's
motion for attorney's
fees was denied since
Crooker had not substantially
prevailed in his
suit. The Court of Appeals
Court's ruling in regard
to the denial of
19) Crooker v. Standish             Office of the Pardon              Crooker requested the disclosure of documents              Crooker's petition was
C.A. No. 80-0611                Attorney U.S. Dept. of            which were to be relied upon in connection with            dismissed noting that
Justice (DOJ)                     his petition for executive clemency to the President.      depositions would be
Standish, the U.S. Pardon Attorney, denied                 available after suit was
Crooker's request. Crooker filed a petition to take        filed.
20) Crooker v. Office               Office of the Deputy              Crooker sought records maintained under his name           Judge Green granted
of the Deputy Attorney          Attorney General                  by DAG. DAG notified Crooker that no records               summary judgment for
General, et                     (DAG) U.S. Dept. of               existed at DAG, but that records located in the office     the defendant, noting
al., C.A. No. 80-1404           Justice                           of the Associate Attorney General could be                 that no records had been
1404                                                              obtained upon payment of the copying fee of                withheld and that
$13.90. Crooker's request for a fee waiver was             Crooker was not entitled
denied.                                                    to a fee waiver for the
records maintained in the
21) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        Crooker sought records that had surfaced during            The documents that were
of Alcohol, Tobacco             and Firearms                      his suit filed in Massachusetts against the Department     subjected to the stipulated
and Firearms,                   (BATF), U.S. Dept. of             of Justice. The bulk of the records had                    dismissal were barred
et al., C.A. No.                Treasury                          been the subject of a stipulated dismissal with            from the suit being that
80-1405                                                           prejudice in Crooker v. Department of Treasury             the previous dismissal
and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,               was a final judgment.
C.A. No. 79-2008, but six documents were released          The deleted portions
leased to Crooker in deleted form. Two additional          were found to be exempt
documents could not be located.                            pursuant to FOIA exemption
(7) (C). Since the
BATF could not locate
the remaining two documents,
that the records were
not being improperly
withheld. Defendants'
the court further ruled
that Crooker was not entitled
since he had not substantially
22) Crooker v. United               U.S. Dept. of Treasury,           Crooker requested copies of photographs of agency          Judge Hart dismissed
States Dept. of                 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        employees from BATF. Following the denial of               the suit noting that
Treasury C.A. No.               and Firearms                      his administrative appeal, Crooker filed suit.             Crooker was not entitled
80-1406                         (BATF)                                                                                       to photographs of Treasury
23) Crooker v. Federal              Federal Bureau of Investigation   Crooker requested records maintained under his             Judge Hart dismissed
Bureau of Investigations,       (FBI), U.S.                       name from FBI field offices in Boston and New              the suit noting that
et                              Dept. of Justice                  Haven, Connecticut. The FBI requested a copying            Crooker could pay $9.40.
al., C.A. No. 80-1408                                             fee of $9.40. Crooker refused to pay.
24) Crooker v. Office               Office of the Solicitor           Crooker requested copies of all documents maintained       Judge Hart dismissed
of the Solicitor                General, U.S. Dept. of            under his name in connection with 6 specific               the suit without
General, et al.,                Justice                           cases in which adverse judgments were entered              prejudice to allow
C.A.A. No. 80-1408                                                against the United States.                                 Crooker to amend his request
for documents by
and numbers of the
25) Crooker v. United               United States Bureau              Crooker sought copies of four administrative remedy        Judge Hart dismissed
States Bureau of                of Prisons, U.S. Dept.            abstracts from the Bureau of Prisons. The                  the suit under 28 U.S.C.
Prisons, et al.,                of Justice                        Bureau requested copying fees. Crooker's request           1915(d), noting that
C.A. No. 80-1409                                                  for a fee waiver was denied. Crooker lost his              Crooker had not indicated
administrative appeal and filed suit.                      he could not pay the
fee and that Crooker
was "engaged in harassment,"
citing civil action
numbers: 78-1820, 78-1867,
79-2560, 79-3336,
80-0081, 80-0611, 80-1404,
80-1405, 80-1406,
80-1407, and 80-1408.
26) Crooker v. United               U.S. Dept. of Justice             Crooker requested documents maintained under his           Crooker's motion for attorney's
States Department               (DOJ), Civil Division             name from the Civil Division and the FBI. Some             fees in his action
of Justice, et al.,             DOJ, Criminal Division            of the requested documents were withheld and               against the Civil Division
Civ.A. No. 78-1820              DOJ, Identification Division      Crooker filed an administrative appeal. Having received    of the DOJ and
Ct.App. No.                     of the Federal                    no response on his appeal. Crooker filed                   the Identification Division
80-1005                         Bureau of Investigation           suit. All documents relevant to Crooker's request          of the FBI was
(FBI), Los Angeles                were released and Crooker did not contest any exemptions   granted, but denied in
Field Office of the               which were asserted. Crooker moved for                     regard to the Criminal
FBI. Additional agencies          attorney's fees, noting that it took 13 months for         Division of the DOJ and
involved in                       his FOIA request to be completed.                          the Los Angeles Field
processing the FOIA                                                                          Office of the FBI. However,
request: Executive Office                                                                    the award was limited
for the United                                                                               to $38.75 since
States Attorney, U.S.                                                                        Crooker had no overhead
Marshals Service, and                                                                        and was being supported
the Drug Enforcement                                                                         at the public expense.
Administration (DEA).                                                                        Crooker's motion to dismiss
fees was denied.
Defendants appealed and
Crooker filed a cross-appeal.
C. REPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
1) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        see 670 F.2d 1051                                          Rehearing granted: see
of Alcohol, Tobacco             and Firearms                                                                                 670 F.2d 1051
and Firearms                    (BATF)
Civ.A. No. 79-2560
635 F.2d 887
(D.C.Cir.1980)
1A) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        Crooker sought a copy of the BATF manual entitled          The District Court granted
of Alcohol,                     and Firearms                      "Surveillance of Premises, Vehicles and Persons            the Government's motion
and Firearms                    (BATF)                            New Agent Training." BATF originally denied    for summary judgment
Civ.A. No.                                                        Crooker's request in its entirety, but                     deciding that the
79-2560 670 F.2d                                                  following an administrative appeal, the Director of        material was protected
1051                                                              BATF released portions of the manual except for            from disclosure under
(D.C.Cir.1981)                                                    the portions which "would benefit those attempt-           Exemption 2. On appeal
ing to violate the law and avoid detection." Id. at        the Court decided without
1053-54. Crooker filed a FOIA suit for the release         argument that the
of the entire manual.                                      withheld portions of the
manual were not protected
by Exemption 2.
the full court of appeals
voted to vacate the panel
decision and rehear the
case en banc. Upon rehearing
Court's decision that the
portions of the manual
sought were protected
from disclosure by Exemption
2) Crooker v. United               U.S. Dept. of Treasury,           Crooker submitted a FOIA request for the BATF              The District Court granted
States Department               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        manual entitled "Conspiracy" on September 26,              Crooker's Motion to
of Treasury                     and Firearms                      1978. The BATF did not reply until January 15,             dismiss but denied his
Civ.A. No. 80-0081              (BATF)                            1979, when it informed Crooker that his request            motion for attorney's
663 F.2d 140                                                      was under review. In March 1979 BATF determined            fees and costs, finding
(D.C.Cir.1980)                                                    that the manual could be released but a                    that Crooker had not
copy of the ruling was not sent to Crooker.                substantially prevailed in
Crooker requested the manual again in April 1979           his suit. On appeal the
and August 1979 but received no response.                  Court ruled that Crooker
Crooker filed suit in January 1980. The Agency             had substantially prevailed
sent the manual to Crooker in February 1980.               but remanded the
case for further determination
whether Crooker
was entitled to pro se
3) Crooker v. United               State Department                  Crooker made a FOIA request to the State Department        Judge Green ruled that
States Department                                                 for FBI files maintained under his name.                   the State Department
of State, C.A. No.                                                After receiving no response, Crooker filed suit on         was not required to release
78-1867                                                           October 6, 1978. On October 5, 1978, the State             the requested documents
(D.D.C.1979) 498                                                  Department notified Crooker that his request had           since the FBI had
F.Supp. 210. Affirmed                                             been referred to the FBI as the result of his earlier      already released them.
in 628                                                            January 1977 request and that the documents                Judge Green denied
F.2d 9                                                            had been released to him by the FBI on April 17,           Crooker's motion for
(D.C.Cir.1980)                                                    1977.                                                      summary judgment. His
application for attorney's
4) Crooker v. Civil                Civil Division of the             Crooker requested various documents pertaining to          Since all of the records,
Division of the                 U.S. Department of                himself.                                                   files and documents requested
United States Department        Justice                                                                                      had been produced,
of Justice                                                                                                                   the action had become
C.A. No. 83-2350,                                                                                                            moot and the case
577 F.Supp.                                                                                                                  was dismissed.
1212 (D.D.C.1983)
5) Crooker v. Central              Central Intelligence              Crooker requested records concerning himself and           Dismissed on the
Intelligence                    Agency (CIA)                      records concerning the testing of the toxin, ricin.        grounds that Crooker
Agency C.A. No.                                                   Crooker later withdrew his request for records             had not exhausted the
83-1717, 577                                                      concerning himself. The CIA requested a commitment         available administrative
F.Supp. 1225                                                      from Crooker to pay for processing fees.                   remedies.
(D.D.C.1983)                                                      Crooker requested a waiver of the copying fees.
6) Crooker v. United               U.S. Marshals Service             Crooker requested any records maintained under             Since the Marshals Service
States Marshals                                                   his name.                                                  was searching for
Service C.A. No.                                                                                                             Crooker's records and
83-1648, 577                                                                                                                 had notified Crooker that
F.Supp. 1217                                                                                                                 his request would be
(D.D.C.1983)                                                                                                                 complied with, but that
Ct.App. No. 83-2205                                                                                                          it was delayed by a
backlog of requests, and
since Crooker had failed
to exhaust the available
Crooker's appeal was dismissed
7) Crooker v. United               U.S. Secret Service               Crooker requested all documents, photos, files or          Since the agency was
States Secret Service,                                            records that were maintained under his name.               willing to comply with
C.A. No. 83-2101,                                                 The Secret Service notified Crooker that they              the request and since
577 F.Supp.                                                       would comply with his request, but that payment            Crooker had not exhausted
1218 (D.D.C.1983)                                                 for the materials from a previous request would            available administrative
Ct.App. No. 83-2204                                               have to be received before the second request              remedies, the court
would be processed. Crooker did not pay the fee            lacked subject matter jurisdiction
and the agency did not process his request.                and the case
Crooker's appeal
was dismissed also.
8) Crooker v. Department           Department of the Army            Crooker requested documents surrounding the testing        The denial of the fee
of the                                                            of the toxin, ricin, which allegedly was performed         waiver was appropriate
Army C.A. No.                                                     by the Department of the Army for Massachusetts            since furnishing the information
83-2349, 577                                                      law enforcement agencies. The Army                         would not primarily
F.Supp. 1220                                                      requested payment before the materials would be            benefit the general
(D.D.C.1983)                                                      processed since Crooker had outstanding payments           public. Since Crooker
Ct.App. No. 84-5089                                               for previous FOIA requests with the Bureau of              indicated that he would
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Crooker requested           not pay for the costs incurred
a waiver of fees which was denied.                         in processing his
FOIA request, the Army
had the right to demand
payment prior to processing
the information. Defendant's
granted and the case
as being frivolous.
9) Crooker v. Bureau               Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco        Crooker sought any records maintained under his            The court determined
of Alcohol, Tobacco             and Firearms                      name and for an updated copy of his Treasury               that since the information
and Firearms                    (BATF)                            Enforcement Communications System (TECS) record            sought was not indexed
C.A. No. 83-1716,                                                 printout. BATF informed Crooker that no                    under the name of
577 F. Supp. 1213                                                  new entries had been made since his previous               the requestor, it did not
(D.D.C.1983)                                                      1982 request. Crooker repeated his request and             fall under the Privacy
Ct.App. No. 83-2203                                               asked that the search fees and copying costs requested     Act. Thus, Crooker was
by the BATF be waived. Crooker also                        not entitled to obtain the
asked the agency to look into the records of Stephen       copies free of charge.
Crooker and Anton Nelson to see if he was                  His request was limited
named in their files. The BATF denied Crooker's            to FOIA where there are
request for a fee waiver since the information             search and duplication
sought would not benefit the general public.               fees. Since there were
Crooker's appeal to the agency for a fee waiver            no meaningful allegations
was denied. He did receive an updated TECS.                of public interest, a
waiver of fees was not
warranted. Crooker's remaining
moot. The court granted
the defendant and dismissed
10) Crooker v. Federal              Federal Bureau of                 Crooker sought any photos, files or records maintained     Defendant's motion to
Bureau of Prisons               Prisons, United States            under his name. The Bureau of Prisons replied              dismiss was granted
C.A. No. 83-2505,               Department of Justice             that Crooker's request would take 60-90                    since the Bureau had
579 F.Supp.                                                       days to process and that the delay was caused because      substantially complied
309 (D.D.C.1984)                                                  the request had to be transferred to the                   with Crooker's request
Ct.App. No. 84-5131                                               Northeast Regional Office. When Crooker did not            and since Crooker had
receive the records immediately he filed suit. The         not exhausted his administrative
delay in processing Crooker's request was caused           remedies in regard
by problems in locating the records and due to a           to the deleted portions.
backlog of requests, but Crooker finally received          Since Crooker had
the records he sought. Certain portions of the             not substantially prevailed
records Crooker received were deleted. Crooker             in his suit, his request
continued to seek the deleted portions and pro se          for attorney's fees
attorney's fees.                                           was denied. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the
D. REPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS
1) Crooker v. Office               Office of Pardon Attorney,        Crooker sought to review the records connected             Disclosure of the Deputy
of the Pardon Attorney          Department of                     with this petition for executive clemency filed with       Attorney General's memorandum
U.S.                            Justice                           the office of the Pardon Attorney. Crooker acted           to the President
Department of                                                     pro se.                                                    was denied; the
Justice 614 F.2d                                                                                                             case was remanded for
825 (2d Cir.1980)                                                                                                            further proceedings to
C.A. No. 79-2111                                                                                                             determine whether disclosure
computation record, the
Bureau of Prisons progress
pre-sentence report was
permissible under FOIA.
On remand the court determined
presentence report was
exempt from FOIA as a
2) Crooker v. United                                                 Motion to vacate sentence on grounds that evidence         District court's determination
States 620 F.2d                                                   of oral threats made by Crooker to probation               that the evidence
313 (1st Cir.1980)                                                officer was inadmissible under the doctrine of             was admissible since the
Cert. denied 449                                                  collateral estoppel: Crooker had been acquitted in         United States was not a
U.S. 857 (1980)                                                   the Massachusetts Superior Court of charges involving      party in the state proceedings
C.A. No. 80-1095                                                  the oral threats (NOT FOIA).                               was affirmed.
3) Crooker v. United               Department of Justice             Crooker made a written request for a copy of any           The District Court ruled
States Department                                                 "charging manuals, rules and guidelines used by            that Crooker was not entitled
of Justice, 632                                                   the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of        to attorney's fees
F.2d 916 (1st Cir.                                                Massachusetts and/or the manner in which prosecutorial     since he acted pro se
1980) C.A. No.                                                    discretion will be exercised," on April 19,                and he had not "substantially
80-1109                                                           1979. On May 22, 1979, Crooker filed suit to               prevailed" in his
compel disclosure. The documents were released             suit. On appeal the
during the course of litigation and Crooker requested      court ruled that Crooker
dismissal and attorney's fees.                             had "substantially prevailed"
in his suit for
disclosure of the documents,
but that pro se
attorney's fees were not
authorized under FOIA.
4) Crooker v. U.S.                 Internal Revenue Service          Crooker filed suit against IRS under FOIA for the          The District Court denied
Department of                   (IRS)                             release of documents relating to an investigation          Crooker's claim for attorney's
the Treasury 634                                                  of his 1979 income tax return. One month after             fees, despite the
F.2d 48 (2nd                                                      Crooker filed suit, IRS released the requested documents.  fact that he had substantially
Cir.1980) C.A. No.                                                Crooker then sought attorney's fees and                    prevailed in his
80-2087                                                           costs.                                                     suit, because Crooker
had made an inadequate
showing of his interests
in the records and of
any public benefit in
their disclosure. The
Crooker's FOIA suits
and that FOIA "was not
enacted to create a cottage
industry for federal
prisoners." Id. at 49.
5) Crooker v. United               U.S. Parole Commission,           Crooker filed suit under FOIA seeking release of           The District Court held
States Parole                   U.S. Department                   his pre-sentence report and drug detoxification            that the Parole Commission
Commission, 730                 of Justice                        records.                                                   had properly withheld
F.2d 1 (1st                                                                                                                  the presentence report
Cir.1984), 105                                                                                                               and medical records,
S.Ct. 317. Cert.                                                                                                             but ordered the Commission
granted, judgment                                                                                                            to furnish Crooker
vacated and remanded.                                                                                                        with a summary of medical
760                                                                                                                          records pursuant to
F.2d 1 (1st                                                                                                                  the Parole Act. The Appeals
Cir.1985) C.A. No.                                                                                                           Court affirmed
83-1687                                                                                                                      that the presentence report
was not subject to
disclosure under FOIA,
but remanded for determination
medical records could be
released without disclosing
was vacated and remanded
in 105 S. Ct. 317. On
remand in 760 F.2d 1
the court ordered the release
of the presentence
6) Crooker v. United               U.S. Parole Commission,           Crooker sought attorney's fees under FOIA based            Attorney's fees were
States Parole                   U.S. Department                   on the Court's previous decisions that the Parole          awarded for work done
Commission, 776                 of Justice                        Commission must furnish Crooker with copies of             to secure the release of
F.2d 366 (1st                                                     his presentence report, 760 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1985),         the presentence report
Cir.1985) C.A. No.                                                and certain medical records, 730 F.2d 1 (1st               due to the benefit to the
83-1687                                                           Cir.1984).                                                 public, but fees were not
awarded for work done
7) Crooker v. United               U.S. Department of                Crooker, along with another inmate of the Federal          Summary judgment was
States Department               Justice, Bureau of                Correctional Institute (FCI) Danbury, Connecticut,         granted for the defendants
of Justice 497                  Prisons                           and on behalf of "all others similarly situated at         because prison officials
F.Supp. 500                                                       the [FCI]," sought to enjoin prison officials from         have the power to
(D.Conn.1980) C.A.                                                routinely and randomly monitoring prisoners' personal      investigate potential
No. 80-0146                                                       and legal telephone calls.                                 criminal violations in order
to preserve the security
and orderly management
institution. Since procedures
for unmonitored
legal telephone calls had
been put into effect, that
portion of plaintiffs' suit
E. UNREPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS
1) Crooker v. Boston               Federal Bureau of Investigation   Crooker sought documents pertaining to himself.            The FOIA exemptions
Field Office of Investigation,  (FBI), DOJ                        Portions of the documents were released and the            were upheld and summary
et al.,                                                           remainder were withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions.       judgment was granted
C.A. No. 78-608                                                                                                              for defendants.
2) Crooker v. Bureau               Boston Field Office of            Crooker sought documents pertaining to himself.            The FOIA exemptions
of Investigation                the FBI, DOJ                      The documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA               were upheld and summary
and the Department                                                exemptions. Crooker requested the documents a              judgment was granted
of Justice,                                                       second time and when his request was denied                for defendants.
C.A. No. B-79-190                                                 again he filed suit.
3) Crooker v. Department           Miami Field Office of             Crooker sought records pertaining to himself. The          The FOIA exemptions
of Justice                      the FBI, DOJ                      request also sought information about a third party        were upheld and summary
C.A. No. B-79-191                                                 which was forwarded to the New York Office.                judgment was granted
(2nd Cir.)                                                        The records were withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions.     for defendants.
4) Crooker v. Department           FBI, DOJ                          Crooker sought the FBI's manual on investigative           The manual was released
of Justice                                                        instructions.                                              during litigation and the
C.A. No. B-79-299                                                                                                            case was dismissed.
5) Crooker v. Department           FBI, DOJ                          Crooker sought records pertaining to himself in            The exemptions were upheld
of Justice                                                        connection with his convictions for mail fraud.            and summary judgment
C.A. No. D-79-346                                                 The documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA               was granted for
(2nd Cir.)                                                        exemptions.                                                defendants.
6) Crooker v. Los                  FBI, DOJ                          Crooker sought records pertaining to himself.              The case was dismissed
Angeles Field Office                                                                                                         for improper venue.
C.A. No. B-80-24
*1153 F. INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICES Information requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Kentucky:
1) 78-24 Crooker v. Boggs, Lilburn, Deputy Director of the United States Secret Service
2) 78-117 Crooker v. Department of Justice, et al.,
Information requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Connecticut District:
1) B 79-59, Crooker v. Department of Justice, et al.,
2) B 79-189, Crooker v. Office of the Pardon Attorney and the Department of Justice
3) B 79-192, Crooker v. Department of Justice
4) B 79-193 Crooker v. Department of Justice
5) B 79-399, Crooker v. Civil Division of the Department of Justice, et al.,
6) B 79-400, Crooker v. Drug Enforcement Agency, et al.,
7) B 79-437, Crooker v. Department of Justice
8) B 79-498, Crooker v. Department of Justice, et al.,
9) B 80-69, Crooker v. United States Customs Service, et al.,
10) 80-158, Crooker v. United States
11) 80-2006, Crooker v. Department of Justice
12) 84-2922, Crooker v. Warden
Information requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office Massachusetts District:
1) 79-1369, Crooker v. United States
2) 79-1465, Crooker v. Department of Justice
3) 79-1898, Crooker v. Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, et al.,
4) 79-2520-z, Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, et al.,
5) 80-76, Crooker v. United States
6) 83-0074-F, Crooker v. Department of Justice
7) 83-629K, Crooker v. Desmond, et al.,
8) 84-1044, Crooker v. United States
9) 84-2019, Crooker v. United States Marshal's Service
[1] Crooker has filed FOIA and/or Privacy Act suits in district courts in the District of Columbia, First, and Second Circuits. He has sought information maintained in his name from the following federal agencies: (1) Department of Justice; (2) Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; (3) Federal Bureau of Prisons; (4) United States Marshals Service; (5) Federal Bureau of Investigation; (6) United States Parole Commission; (7) United States Secret Service; (8) Central Intelligence Agency; (9) Office of the Pardon Attorney; (10) United States Postal Service; (11) Department of the Army; (12) Department of State; (13) Internal Revenue Service; (14) Office of the United States Attorney General; (15) Office of the United States Solicitor General; (16) Drug Enforcement Agency; and (17) United States Customs Service. See infra Tables A-F.
[2] It should be noted that the Court recently granted an unopposed motion to dismiss in another FOIA case brought by Crooker against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (C.A. No. 86-0516, Order of June 30, 1986).
[*] Number of cases includes only those cases contained in the charts and does not include the cases requested from the First and Second Circuits.