Source: http://www.justice.gov/opcl/civil-remedies
Timestamp: 2015-04-01 03:26:55
Document Index: 67818688

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 7602', '§ 552', '§ 7852', '§ 7852', 'art, 691', '§ 701', '§ 1320', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 7852', '§ 7852', '§ 1491', '§ 211', '§ 511', '§ 552', '§ 1552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552']

You are hereHome » Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties » Privacy Act of 1974 » Overview of The Privacy Act of 1974 2012 Edition Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties
Privacy Act of 1974Overview
E-Government Act of 2002DOJ Privacy Impact Assessments
The Privacy Act provides for four separate and distinct civil causes of action, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g), two of which provide for injunctive relief – amendment lawsuits under (g)(1)(A) and access lawsuits under (g)(1)(B) – and two of which provide for compensatory relief in the form of monetary damages – damages lawsuits under (g)(1)(C) and (g)(1)(D).
It is worth noting that several courts have stated that the remedies provided for by the Privacy Act are exclusive, in that a violation of the Act does not provide for any relief in the course of a federal criminal prosecution, see United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 293 (7th Cir. 1985) (“[E]ven if the defendant had made a sustainable argument [under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)], the proper remedy is a civil action under Section 552a(g)(1) of the Privacy Act, not dismissal of the indictment.”); United States v. Bell, 734 F.2d 1315, 1318 (8th Cir. 1984) (Even if appellant’s (e)(3) argument was sufficiently raised at trial, “it cannot be a basis for reversing his conviction.”); United States v. Gillotti, 822 F. Supp. 984, 989 (W.D.N.Y. 1993) (“[T]he appropriate relief for a violation of Section 552a(e)(7) is found in the statute and allows for damages as well as amendment or expungement of the unlawful records. . . . [T]here is nothing in the statute itself, nor in any judicial authority, which suggests that its violation may provide any form of relief in a federal criminal prosecution.”), nor is failure to comply with the Privacy Act a proper defense to summons enforcement, see, e.g., United States v. McAnlis, 721 F.2d 334, 337 (11th Cir. 1983) (compliance with 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) held not prerequisite to enforcement of summons); United States v. Berney, 713 F.2d 568, 572 (10th Cir. 1983) (Privacy Act “contains its own remedies for noncompliance”); United States v. Harris, No. 98-3117, 1998 WL 870351, at *2 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 1998) (citing McAnlis and Berney and rejecting “irrelevant argument that . . . the Privacy Act . . . guarantee[s] [appellant] answers to his questions before he has to comply with the IRS summons”); Hernandez v. United States, No. CV-10-MC-9181, 2010 WL 5292339, at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2010) (“[T]he IRS is not required to comply with section 552a(e)(3) as a prerequisite to issuing or enforcing a summons. . . . Additionally, the Privacy Act does not contain any provision allowing the quashing of an IRS summons as a remedy for any alleged failure to provide information as required by that Act.”); Adams v. IRS, No. 2:98 MC 9, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16018, at *15 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 1999) (compliance with Privacy Act not prerequisite to enforcement of IRS summons); Reimer v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 2d 232, 237 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (rejecting argument to quash summons on (e)(3) grounds because requirements of subsection (e)(3) “are not applicable to summons issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602, 7609”); Connell v. United States, No. 1:98 CV 2094, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20149, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 1998) (citing McAnlis and stating: “That the Respondent did not comply with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)(A)-(D), is not a basis upon which to quash the summonses at issue.”); see also Phillips v. United States, No. 98-3128, 1999 WL 228585, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 10, 1999) (holding Privacy Act notice requirements inapplicable to issuance of IRS summons, as 26 U.S.C. § 7852(e) “plainly states that the provisions of the Privacy Act do not apply, directly or indirectly, to assessing the possibility of a tax liability”); Schwartz v. Kempf, No. 4:02-cv-198, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2238, at *11 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2004) (same); Reimer v. United States, No. CV-F-99-5685, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15282, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 1999) (same); cf. Estate of Myers v. United States, 842 F. Supp. 1297, 1300-02 (E.D. Wash. 1993) (although ultimately applying § 7852(e)’s jurisdictional bar to dismiss Privacy Act claim, nevertheless recognizing applicability of subsection (e)(3) to IRS summons, and possibility “that a summons may be judicially enforceable yet not meet the disclosure requirements of the Privacy Act”).
It has also been held that “[b]ecause the Privacy Act provides its own remedy for an agency’s improper refusal to process a proper request for information, [a plaintiff] is not entitled to mandamus relief.” Kotmair v. Netsch, No. 93-490, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10781, at *5 (D. Md. July 21, 1993); see also Christian v. Sec’y of the Army, No. 11-0276, 2011 WL 345945, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2011) (rejecting pro se plaintiff’s attempt “to correct his military records via a writ of mandamus” on ground that the Privacy Act “provides an adequate remedy for addressing plaintiff’s claims”); Carrick v. Disclosure Specialist Brenda Spencer, IRS, No. 3:02MC95-V, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11706, at *3-4 (W.D.N.C. June 6, 2003) (magistrate’s recommendation) (denying petition for writ of mandamus as “the Privacy Act establishes a procedure for filing suit in federal court if an agency refuses to comply with a request” and petitioner has not “shown, or attempted to show, that this procedure is inadequate to obtain the relief requested”), adopted 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17189 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2003); cf. Graham v. Hawk, 857 F. Supp. 38, 41 (W.D. Tenn. 1994) (“[T]he existence of remedies under the Privacy Act [for alleged inaccuracy] preclude plaintiff’s entitlement to mandamus, even though his claim under that act is substantively meritless.”), aff’d, 59 F.3d 170 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision). In the context of civil remedies, the only court of appeals to consider the issue has held that the Privacy Act “does not limit the remedial rights of persons to pursue whatever remedies they may have under the [Federal Tort Claims Act]” for privacy violations consisting of record disclosures. O’Donnell v. United States, 891 F.2d 1079, 1084-85 (3d Cir. 1989); see also Beaven v. DOJ, No. 03-84, 2007 WL 1032301, at *21-25 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2007) (assuming jurisdiction over claims of invasion of privacy brought under FTCA and based on conduct held to violate Privacy Act, but determining that plaintiffs failed to prove the elements of those claims), aff’d in part, rev’d in part & remanded, on other grounds, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010); cf. Alexander v. FBI, 971 F. Supp. 603, 610-11 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing O’Donnell and holding that Privacy Act does not preempt causes of action under local or state law for common law invasion of privacy tort), modified in nonpertinent part, 691 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d on other grounds, 456 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). But see Hager v. United States, No. 86-3555, slip op. at 7-8 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 1987) (“Because the Privacy Act does have its own enforcement mechanism” for plaintiff’s claims relating to the disclosure of confidential information, “it preempts the FTCA.”); cf. Tripp v. United States, 257 F. Supp. 2d 37, 45 (D.D.C. 2003) (dismissing plaintiff’s claim under the FTCA for negligent disclosure of private information, as plaintiff could point to no “duty analogous to that created by the federal Privacy Act under local law to state a claim upon which relief [could] be granted”); Fort Hall Landowners Alliance, Inc. v. BIA, No. 99-052, slip op. at 16 (D. Idaho Mar. 29, 2001) (finding that common law obligations “not to disclose personal information” were “preempted by the Privacy Act”).
It should also be noted that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Feres doctrine, which holds that “‘the [g]overnment is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service’” does not apply to the Privacy Act. Cummings v. Dep’t of the Navy, 279 F.3d 1051, 1053-58 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950), and concluding that “without regard to the identity of the plaintiff or the agency she is suing, the [Privacy Act] plainly authorizes injunctive relief . . . and monetary relief,” which remains “the best evidence of congressional intent” that the Feres doctrine “does not extend to Privacy Act lawsuits brought by military personnel against the military departments”), rev’g 116 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2000); see also Chang v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, No. 01-5240, slip op. at 1 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2002) (citing Cummings to vacate district court opinion), vacating & remanding per curiam No. 00-0783 (D.D.C. May 17, 2001) (holding suit to be barred by Feres doctrine); Gamble v. Dep’t of Army, 567 F. Supp. 2d 150, 155 n.9 (D.D.C. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by In re Sealed Case, 551 F.2d 1047, 1049-50 (D.C. Cir. 2009). But cf. Duggan v. Dep’t of Air Force, No. H-11-2556, 2012 WL 1884144, at *4 (S.D. Tex. May 21, 2012) (“plaintiff’s claim that the Feres doctrine does not bar his Privacy Act claim also fails” as “plaintiff’s medical information was released within the military command structure.”). In an earlier decision, however, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s Privacy Act claims were barred under the Feres doctrine. See Uhl v. Swanstrom, 79 F.3d 751, 755-56 (8th Cir. 1996); cf. Walsh v. United States, No. 1:05-CV-0818, 2006 WL 1617273, at *5 (M.D. Pa. June 9, 2006) (dicta) (comparing Uhl and Cummings and noting that “[t]here is a split of authority as to whether the Feres doctrine bars Privacy Act claims”), aff’d on other grounds, 328 F. App’x 806 (3d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 502 (2009). The Cummings opinion did not reference Uhl, the only other appellate decision on this issue.
Several courts of appeals have held that the Privacy Act’s remedies do preclude an action against individual employees for damages under the Constitution in a “Bivens” suit. See Djenasevic v. EOUSA, No. 08-5509, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15424, at *2 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2009) (“[T]o the extent appellant attempts to state a Bivens claim, the comprehensive remedial scheme of the Privacy Act precludes creation of a Bivens remedy for any of his constitutional claims.”); Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 707 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (concluding that the Privacy Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme precludes a Bivens claim even though that scheme does not necessarily provide plaintiffs with full relief); Griffin v. Ashcroft, No. 02-5399, 2003 WL 22097940, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 2003) (per curiam) (affirming “district court’s dismissal of appellant’s constitutional claims based on the BOP’s alleged maintenance and use of inaccurate information because such claims are encompassed within the Privacy Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme”); Chung v. DOJ, 333 F.3d 273, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Bivens claims “because . . . they are encompassed within the remedial scheme of the Privacy Act”); Downie v. City of Middleburg Hts., 301 F.3d 688, 696 (6th Cir. 2002) (agreeing with district court that “because the Privacy Act is a comprehensive legislative scheme that provides a meaningful remedy for the kind of wrong [plaintiff] alleges that he suffered, we should not imply a Bivens remedy”); see also Lange v. Taylor, 5:10-CT-3097, 2012 WL 255333, at *2-3 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2012); Lim v. United States, No. 10-2574, 2011 WL 2650889, at *8 (D. Md. July 5, 2011); Lewis v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 770 F. Supp. 2d 246, 251-52 (D.D.C. 2011); Melvin v. SSA, No. 5:09-CV-235, 2010 WL 1979880, at *4 (E.D.N.C. May 13, 2010); Hurt v. D.C. Court Servs., 612 F. Supp. 2d 54, 56 (D.D.C. 2009), aff’d in pertinent part per curiam sub nom. Hurt v. Cromer, No. 09-5224, 2010 WL 604863 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2010); Roggio v. FBI, No. 08-4991, 2009 WL 2460780, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2009); Al-Beshrawi v. Arney, No. 5:06CV2114, 2007 WL 1245845, at *3-4 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2007); Sudnick v. DOD, 474 F. Supp. 2d 91, 100 (D.D.C. 2007); Hatfill v. Ashcroft, 404 F. Supp. 2d 104, 116-17 (D.D.C. 2005); Clark v. BOP, 407 F. Supp. 2d 127, 131 (D.D.C. 2005); Newmark v. Principi, 262 F. Supp. 2d 509, 518-19 (E.D. Pa. 2003); Khalfani v. Sec’y, VA, No. 94-CV-5720, 1999 WL 138247, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 1999), appeal dismissed for appellant’s failure to comply with scheduling order, No. 99-6140 (2d Cir. Oct. 10, 2000); Fares v. INS, 29 F. Supp. 2d 259, 262 (W.D.N.C. 1998); Sullivan v. USPS, 944 F. Supp. 191, 195-96 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); Hughley v. BOP, No. 94-1048, slip op. at 5 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 1996), aff’d sub nom. Hughley v. Hawks, No. 96-5159, 1997 WL 362725 (D.C. Cir. May 6, 1997); Blazy v. Woolsey, No. 93-2424, 1996 WL 43554, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 1996), subsequent decision sub nom. Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10, 27 (D.D.C. 1997), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330, 1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998); Williams v. VA, 879 F. Supp. 578, 585-87 (E.D. Va. 1995); Mangino v. Dep’t of the Army, No. 94-2067, 1994 WL 477260, at *9 (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 1994); Mittleman v. U.S. Treasury, 773 F. Supp. 442, 454 (D.D.C. 1991); cf. Royer v. BOP, No. 1:10-cv-0146, 2010 WL 4827727, at *5 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2010) (in transferring case to different venue, stating that plaintiff’s Bivens claims “may simply collapse into [his] Privacy Act claims, at least insofar as they merely repeat the allegations that the BOP has maintained inaccurate records about [his] affiliation with terrorist groups”); Patterson v. FBI, 705 F. Supp. 1033, 1045 n.16 (D.N.J. 1989) (to extent that First Amendment claim involves damages resulting from maintenance of records, “such an action is apt to be foreclosed by the existence of the Privacy Act”), aff’d, 893 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1990). But see Doe v. U.S. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 483 F. Supp. 539, 564-75 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (permitting Bivens claim, but relying on fact that plaintiff’s claims related in part to events predating effective date of Privacy Act and, more significantly, so holding without benefit of subsequent Supreme Court precedent bearing on issue); see also Alexander, 971 F. Supp. at 610-11 (agreeing with outcome in Blazy and Mittleman, but concluding that their logic does not extend to prohibit recovery under local law for torts committed by individuals who, although government employees, were acting outside scope of their employment; holding that “Privacy Act does not preempt the common law invasion of privacy tort”).
In the context of equitable relief under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2006), for claims governed by the Privacy Act, the Supreme Court has recently stated that “[t]he Privacy Act says nothing about standards of proof governing equitable relief that may be open to victims of adverse determinations or effects, although it may be that this inattention is explained by the general provisions for equitable relief within the [APA].” Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 619 n.1 (2004); cf. OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948, 28,968 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf (stating in its Civil Remedies section that “[a]n individual may seek judicial review under other provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)”). Indeed, under the APA, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit enjoined the Veterans Administration from disclosing medical records about an individual pursuant to a routine use that “would permit routine disclosure pursuant to a grand jury subpoena” as that would “circumvent the mandates of the Privacy Act.” Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457, 1466-67 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (although plaintiff did “not premise his claim for equitable relief on the APA,” the court considered the claim under the APA, rather than resolving the plaintiff’s constitutional claims, in order to further the principle of “avoiding constitutional questions if at all possible”) (discussed above under subsections (b)(3) and (b)(11)); see also Recticel Foam Corp. v. DOJ, No. 98-2523, slip op. at 9 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2002), appeal dismissed, No. 02-5118 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 25, 2002) (holding that court had jurisdiction under APA to enjoin FBI from disclosing investigative records in order to prevent future violation of subsection (b) of Privacy Act); Doe v. Herman, No. 97-0043, 1998 WL 34194937, at *4-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 18, 1998) (invoking APA to issue preventative injunction in response to Privacy Act claim); cf. Haase v. Sessions, 893 F.2d 370, 374 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (stating in dicta that “[i]t is not at all clear to us that Congress intended to preclude broad equitable relief (injunctions) to prevent (e)(7) violations . . . [a]nd in the absence of such explicit intention, by creating a general cause of action (under (g)(1)(D)) for violations of the Privacy Act, Congress presumably intended the district court to use inherent equitable powers”); Rice v. United States, 245 F.R.D. 3, 7 (D.D.C. 2007) (noting that “there is some authority for awarding [declaratory] relief under the APA” for claims arising under the Privacy Act); Doe v. Veneman, 230 F. Supp. 2d 739, 752 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (enjoining release of records in system of records because release would be violation of FOIA and Privacy Act) (reverse FOIA suit), aff’d in part & rev’d in part on other grounds, 380 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2004); AFL-CIO v. FEC, 177 F. Supp. 2d 48, 61-64 (D.D.C. 2001) (although not reaching merits of Privacy Act claims, finding disclosure contrary to law where Exemption 7(C) “bar[s] release” of information under APA), aff’d on other grounds, 333 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2003). However, courts in other cases have refused to allow claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act where the relief sought is expressly provided by the Privacy Act. See Andreozzi v. DOD, No. 03-5304, 2004 WL 1083036, at *2 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2004) (per curiam) (holding that plaintiff’s APA claim for expunction of records “lacked merit”; denying plaintiff’s Privacy Act claim for expunction or amendment of records as the agency had exempted “the relevant system of records from the access, amendment, and civil penalty provisions of the Act,” and plaintiff failed to “request expunction or amendment at the agency level prior to filing suit”); Wilson v. McHugh, No. 11-303, 2012 WL 403282, at *9 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2012) (“To the extent [plaintiff] relies on the Privacy Act and believes the Privacy Act provides him a legal remedy, . . . [plaintiff] cannot seek review in this Court under the APA.”); Reid v. BOP, No. 04-1845, 2005 WL 1699425, at *2 (D.D.C. July 20, 2005) (reasoning that “[b]ecause there is an adequate remedy available to plaintiff under the Privacy Act, he cannot resort to the APA for relief”); Tripp v. DOD, 193 F. Supp. 2d 229, 238-40 (D.D.C. 2002) (holding that a “plaintiff [cannot] bring an independent APA claim predicated on a Privacy Act violation”); Mittleman v. U.S. Treasury, 773 F. Supp. 442, 449 (D.D.C. 1991) (finding that plaintiff’s APA claim for failure to follow agency regulations and to provide plaintiff with hearing or other opportunity to rebut allegations against her in various government reports “is, in part, simply a restatement of her Privacy Act claim . . . [for which] Congress has provided plaintiff with statutory schemes and remedies through which she may seek relief”).
It also has been held that a court may order equitable relief in the form of the expungement of records either in an action under the Privacy Act or in a direct action under the Constitution. See, e.g., Doe v. U.S. Air Force, 812 F.2d 738, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Smith v. Nixon, 807 F.2d 197, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 65-66 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Ezenwa v. Gallen, 906 F. Supp. 978, 986 (M.D. Pa. 1995); cf. Dickson v. OPM, 828 F.2d 32, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (suggesting that it is not resolved “whether as a general proposition, the Privacy Act defines the scope of remedies available under the Constitution”). See also the discussion of expungement of records under “Amendment Lawsuits under (g)(1)(A),” below.
The District Court for the District of Columbia has analyzed the relationship between the Privacy Act and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3784, which “protect[s] patients from incompetent physicians by establishing a database to collect information related to professional competence or conduct which could adversely affect the health or welfare of patients.” Doe v. Thompson, 332 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125 (D.D.C. 2004). In Doe, a dentist filed a subsection (g)(1)(B) claim against the Department of Health and Human Services. Id. at 127. However, “instead of reviewing the plaintiff’s request pursuant to the Privacy Act, the [Department] responded by informing the plaintiff that the sole administrative remedy available to him was the procedures promulgated by the [Department]” pursuant to HCQIA. Id. The court concluded that because the procedures promulgated by the Department pursuant to HCQUIA “provide less protection than the procedures required by the Privacy Act,” it held that the Department “must adhere to the requirements of the Privacy Act when considering a dispute to a record in the” database established by HCQIA. Id. at 130, 132-33.
The District Court for the District of Columbia has also analyzed the relationship between the Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-1320d-8 (2006), which “prohibits both the improper disclosure of individually identifiable health information and the improper acquisition of such information.” Cacho v. Chertoff, No. 06-00292, 2006 WL 3422548, *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 28, 2006). In Cacho, the plaintiff brought a subsection (b)/(g)(1)(D) claim against the Department of Homeland Security “on the theory that [a Department employee] improperly accessed [the plaintiff’s] medical record.” Id. at *5. The court dismissed this claim on the ground that it “would be inconsistent with both HIPAA and the Privacy Act’s plain language” to “recognize under the Privacy Act a private right of action that Congress has expressly denied under HIPAA.” Id. In addition, the District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a plaintiff’s subsection (b)/(g)(1)(D) claims where the Attorney General invoked the State Secrets Privilege. Edmonds v. DOJ, 323 F. Supp. 2d 65, 80-82 (D.D.C. 2004). Specifically, the court explained that “because the . . . documents related to the plaintiff’s employment, termination and security review that comprise the system of records are privileged, and because the plaintiff would be unable to depose witnesses whose identities are privileged or to otherwise identify through discovery the individual or individuals who purportedly released the privileged information, the plaintiff is . . . unable to proceed with her Privacy Act claims.” Id. at 81.
Finally, for discussions of class certifications for claims brought under the Privacy Act, see Rice v. United States, 211 F.R.D. 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2002), Fort Hall Landowners Alliance, Inc. v. BIA, No. 99-052, slip op. at 10 (D. Idaho Aug. 16, 2002), Baker v. Runyon, No. 96-2619, 1997 WL 232606, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 1997), and Ingerman v. IRS, No. 89-5396, 1990 WL 10029523, at *2 (D.N.J. July 16, 1990), for examples of cases granting class certification, and Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 184 (4th Cir. 2002), aff’d on other grounds, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), Fort Hall Landowners Alliance, Inc. V. BIA, No. 99-052, 2007 WL 218725, at *3 (D. Idaho July 16, 2007), Schmidt v. VA, 218 F.R.D. 619, 637 (E.D. Wis. 2003), and Lyon v. United States, 94 F.R.D. 69, 76 (W.D. Okla. 1982), for examples of cases limiting or denying class certification. Compare also Covert v. Harrington, 876 F.2d 751, 752 (9th Cir. 1989), Andrews v. VA, 838 F.2d 418, 419 (10th Cir. 1988), Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 679 (10th Cir. 1980), and Romero-Vargas v. Shalala, 907 F. Supp. 1128, 1131 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 1995), for cases involving multiple plaintiffs.
A. Amendment Lawsuits under (g)(1)(A) “Whenever any agency . . . makes a determination under subsection (d)(3) . . . not to amend an individual’s record in accordance with his request, or fails to make such review in conformity with that subsection [the individual may bring a civil action against the agency].” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(A).
– Exhaustion of administrative remedies – through pursuit of an amendment request to the agency and a request for administrative review, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2)-(3) – is a prerequisite to a civil action for amendment of records. As explained in greater detail below under “Access Lawsuits under (g)(1)(B),” this requirement is jurisdictional in nature because it is imposed by the Act itself, whereas the requirement of exhaustion in access lawsuits is only jurisprudential in nature, as it is not imposed by the Act itself.
The exhaustion principle is well established in the Privacy Act case law. For cases in which the court has required the individual to file a request for amendment of his or her records, in conformity with the agency’s regulations, before commencing a subsection (g)(1)(A) lawsuit, see, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 137-38 (3d Cir. 1992); Hill v. U.S. Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Nagel v. HEW, 725 F.2d 1438, 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Middlebrooks v. Mabus, No. 1:11cv46, 2011 WL 4478686, at *5 n.10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2011); Kvech v. Holder, No. 10-cv-545, 2011 WL 4369452, at *4 n.10 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2011); Washington v. Donley, 802 F. Supp. 2d 539, 553-54 (D. Del. 2011); Reitz v. USDA, No. 08-4131, 2010 WL 786586, at *10 (D. Kan. Mar. 4, 2010); Pailes v. U.S. Peace Corps, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7-8 (D.D.C. 2009), summary affirmance granted on other grounds, No. 09-5400, 2010 WL 2160012 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2010); Pototsky v. DHS, No. CV 07-144, slip op. at 4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2009), aff’d, 368 F. App’x 832 (9th Cir. 2010); Watson v. Mineta, No. 4:05-CV-007, 2007 WL 3102196, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2007) (dicta); Brown v. DOJ, No. 02-2662, slip op. at 24-26 (D. Ala. June 21, 2005); Pontecorvo v. FBI, No. 00-1511, slip op. at 21-22 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2001); Murphy v. United States, 121 F. Supp. 2d 21, 28 (D.D.C. 2000), aff’d per curiam, 64 F. App’x 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003); M.K. v. Tenet, 99 F. Supp. 2d 12, 20 (D.D.C. 2000); Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10, 18-19 (D.D.C. 1997), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330, 1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998); Olivares v. NASA, 882 F. Supp. 1545, 1552 (D. Md. 1995), aff’d, 103 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); Jerez v. DOJ, No. 94-100, slip op. at 8-9 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 1995); Gergick v. Austin, No. 89-0838-CV-W-2, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7338, at *13-16 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 29, 1992), aff’d, No. 92-3210 (8th Cir. July 9, 1993); Simon v. DOJ, 752 F. Supp. 14, 23 n.6 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 980 F.2d 782 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Campbell v. USPS, No. 86-3609, 1990 WL 36132, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 28, 1990); Green v. USPS, No. 88-0539, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6846, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 1989); Tracy v. SSA, No. 88-C-570-S, slip op. at 3-4 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 23, 1988); and Ross v. USPS, 556 F. Supp. 729, 735 (N.D. Ala. 1983). Cf. New-Howard v. Shinseki, No. 09-5350, 2012 WL 2362546, at *6 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2012) (finding plaintiff’s amendment request “flawed [] as she asserts her claim against an entity that no longer has control of the documents” because at the time plaintiff filed her amendment request, she had filed an MSPB action, and thus, records that would “ordinarily be under the control of OPM” were “covered by the appropriate MSPB or EEOC system of records”). For cases in which the court has required the individual to administratively appeal an agency’s denial of his or her amendment request before commencing a subsection (g)(1)(A) lawsuit, see Jernigan v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. 97-35930, 1998 WL 658662, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 1998); Dickson v. OPM, 828 F.2d 32, 40 (D.C. Cir 1987); Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F. 2d 1373, 1377-78 (9th Cir. 1986); Conley v. United States, No. 2:10-cv-444, 2011 WL 1256611, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2011); Pearson v. DHS, No. 3:08-CV-1885-B, 2009 WL 4016414, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2009); Leighton v. CIA., 412 F. Supp. 2d 30, 34-35 (D.D.C. 2006); Finnerty v. USPS, No. 03-558, 2006 WL 54345, at *6-8 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2006); Hass v. U.S. Air Force, 848 F. Supp. 926, 930 (D. Kan. 1994); Freude v. McSteen, No. 4-85-882, slip op. at 4-5 (D. Minn. Oct. 23, 1985), aff’d, 786 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. 1986) (unpublished table decision); and Beaver v. VA, No. 1-82-477, slip op. at 2 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 1983). Cf. Williams v. Bezy, 97 F. App’x 573, 574 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s subsection (e)(5) claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies without specifically discussing whether claim was brought under subsection (g)(1)(A) or subsection (g)(1)(C)); Doe v. Goss, No. 04-2122, 2007 WL 106523, at *8 n.14 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2007) (“Plaintiff cannot circumvent the exhaustion requirement by styling his ‘equitable right’ as a constitutional claim where, as here, Congress has provided administrative machinery for the resolution of the statutory claim.”). But cf. Duke v. United States, 305 F. Supp. 2d 478, 488 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (finding that “although plaintiff [had] not exhausted administrative remedies” court had “subject matter jurisdiction over this claim” because “this exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional requirement” but a “practical” one). It also has been held that a plaintiff cannot “boot-strap” an access claim under (g)(1)(B) into a (g)(1)(A) amendment violation, even though she argued that by denying her request for access the agency had prevented her from exercising her right to request amendment. See Smith v. Cont’l Assurance Co., No. 91 C 0963, 1991 WL 164348, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 1991); accord Mumme v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 150 F. Supp. 2d 162, 173 (D. Me. 2001), aff’d, No. 01-2256 (1st Cir. June 12, 2002); see also M.K., 99 F. Supp. 2d at 20 n.15 (holding that plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies by requesting amendment of records even though they argued that “they cannot ask the CIA[] to amend that which the CIA refuses to admit exists”).
Although subsection (d)(2)(A) requires an agency to “acknowledge in writing such receipt” of an amendment request within ten working days, subsection (d)(2)(B) merely requires an agency to “promptly” make the requested correction or inform the individual of its refusal to amend. In construing this language, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that “[t]he statute provides no exemption from administrative review when an agency fails, even by several months, to abide by a deadline, and none is reasonably implied.” Dickson v. OPM, 828 F.2d 32, 40 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (requiring exhaustion of subsection (d)(3) administrative appeal remedy even when agency did not respond to initial amendment request for 90 days (citing Nagel, 725 F.2d at 1440-41)). But see Schaeuble v. Reno, 87 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389-90 (D.N.J. 2000) (not requiring further exhaustion of administrative remedies where plaintiff had requested amendment and agency had not responded for six months; stating that “[a] six month delay is not a ‘prompt’ response,” and that “[m]oreover, not only has the [agency] not indicated that it will make a final determination . . . by any certain date, the Privacy Act does not bind the [agency] to any definite timeframe for administrative action, which weighs in favor of waiving the exhaustion requirement”).
However, in contrast to subsection (d)(2)(B), subsection (d)(3) requires an agency to make a final determination on administrative appeal from an initial denial of an amendment request within 30 working days (unless, for good cause shown, the head of the agency extends this 30-day period). Thus, court jurisdiction exists as soon as an agency fails to comply with the time requirements of subsection (d)(3); “[t]o require further exhaustion would not only contradict the plain words of the statute but also would undercut [C]ongress’s clear intent to provide speedy disposition of these claims.” Diederich v. Dep’t of the Army, 878 F.2d 646, 648 (2d Cir. 1989).
In Harper v. Kobelinski, 589 F.2d 721 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F. Supp. 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), the agencies denied amendment requests but failed to inform the plaintiffs of their rights to administratively appeal those decisions. In light of the Act’s requirement that agencies inform complainants whose amendment requests have been denied of the available administrative remedies, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2)(B)(ii), the courts in Harper and Liguori refused to penalize the plaintiffs for their failures to exhaust. Harper, 589 F.2d at 723; Liguori, 495 F. Supp. at 646-47; see also Germane v. Heckler, 804 F.2d 366, 369 (7th Cir. 1986) (discussing Harper and Liguori with approval); Mahar v. Nat’l Parks Serv., No. 86-0398, slip op. at 7-11 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 1987) (same); cf. Ertell v. Dep’t of Army, 626 F. Supp. 903, 909-10 (C.D. Ill. 1986) (rejecting agency’s exhaustion defense where it first told employee, in response to his amendment request, that it had destroyed the record but later used same record against him, and ruling that employee was not required to make new request or appeal initial action).
In White v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 589 F.2d 713, 715-16 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (per curiam), the D.C. Circuit held that, notwithstanding any exhaustion of administrative remedies, an amendment action is “inappropriate and premature” where the individual had not yet sought judicial review (under the Administrative Procedure Act) of adverse employment decisions, because granting Privacy Act relief “would tend to undermine the established and proven method by which individuals . . . have obtained review from the courts.” Cf. Douglas v. Farmers Home Admin., No. 91-1969, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9159, at *4-5 (D.D.C. June 26, 1992) (dismissing damages action under Privacy Act where plaintiff had not sought review under Administrative Procedure Act of allegedly inaccurate property appraisal). But see Churchwell v. United States, 545 F.2d 59, 61 (8th Cir. 1976) (probationary employee need not pursue Privacy Act remedy prior to proceeding with due process claim for hearing).
In Crummey v. SSA, 794 F. Supp. 2d 46, 58 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d per curiam, No. 11-5231, 2012 WL 556317 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 6, 2012), the District Court for the District of Columbia explained that “an individual’s request for amendment must relate to an existing record that is maintained within one of the agency’s systems of records.” The plaintiff – who “believe[d] that the Social Security Administration created a trust . . . when it assigned him a Social Security Number and a Social Security Card” – had “draft[ed] an agreement designed to reflect the alleged creation of the Trust.” 794 F. Supp. 2d at 49. The plaintiff brought a subsection (g)(1)(A) claim seeking a court order requiring the SSA “to amend its records to add the Trust Agreement to the SSA’s Master Files, or to somehow incorporate its contents therein.” Id. at 52. The court reviewed the categories of records listed in the applicable system of records notice, see 75 Fed. Reg. 82,123 (Dec. 29, 2010), and determined that “[n]one of the information set forth in the Trust Agreement falls within this universe.” 794 F. Supp. 2d at 58. “In short,” the court concluded, “the Trust Agreement and the information contained therein do not correspond to an ‘item, collection, or grouping’ of information in the Master Files,” and granted summary judgment to the SSA. Id. at 59.
It has also been recognized that jurisdiction to consider a Privacy Act amendment claim exists only if the government has failed to comply with a request for amendment; once a request is complied with and the identified records have been amended, an amendment claim is moot. See, e.g., Conley, 2011 WL 1256611, at *7; Blanton v. Warden, No. 7:10-cv-00552, 2011 WL 1226010, at *2-3 (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2011); Garza v. Pearson, No. 5:08-cv-300, 2009 WL 2500116, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 13, 2009); Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10, 19 (D.D.C. 1997), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330, 1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998).
– Courts “shall determine the matter de novo.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(g)(2)(A).
“De novo review does not contemplate that the court will substitute its judgment for the [agency’s], but rather that the court will undertake an independent determination of whether the amendment request should be denied.” Nolan v. DOJ, No. 89-A-2035, 1991 WL 134803, at *3 (D. Colo. July 17, 1991), appeal dismissed in pertinent part on procedural grounds, 973 F.2d 843 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Doe v. United States, 821 F.2d 694, 697-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that “[d]e novo means . . . a fresh, independent determination of ‘the matter’ at stake”). The applicable standards in amendment lawsuits are accuracy, relevancy, timeliness, and completeness. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2)(B)(i). But see Doe v. United States, 821 F.2d at 697 n.8, 699 (without explanation, stating that “whether the nature of the relief sought is injunctive or monetary, the standard against which the accuracy of the record is measured remains constant” and “[t]hat standard is found in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) and reiterated in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C)”). The burden of proof is on the individual. See Mervin v. FTC, 591 F.2d 821, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (per curiam); Thompson v. Dep’t of Transp. U.S. Coast Guard, 547 F. Supp. 274, 282 (S.D. Fla. 1982); OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948, 28,969 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf.
Note that in a unique statutory displacement action, Congress has expressly removed the jurisdiction of the district courts to order the amendment of IRS records concerning tax liability. 26 U.S.C. § 7852(e) (2006). See, e.g., Gardner v. United States, 213 F.3d 735, 740-41 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Gogert v. IRS, No. 86-1674, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 1987); England v. Comm’r, 798 F.2d 350, 351-52 (9th Cir. 1986); Meyer v. Comm’r, No. 10-767, 2010 WL 4157173, at *8 (D. Minn. Sept. 27, 2010) (magistrate’s recommendation), adopted 2010 WL 4134958 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 2010); Schlabach v. IRS, No. CV-09-298, 2010 WL 2682281, at *1-2 (E.D. Wash. July 2, 2010), related subsequent opinion 2010 WL 3789074, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 23, 2010); Gulden v. United States, No. 8:06-CV-2327-T-27MSS, 2007 WL 3202480, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2007); MacLeod v. IRS, No. 01-2320, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14975, at *9-10 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2002); Singer v. IRS, No. 98-0024, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13301, at *10-11 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 1998); Chandler v. United States, No. 93-C-812A, 1994 WL 315759, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 8, 1994); Fuselier v. IRS, No. 90-0300, slip op. at 1 (W.D. La. Oct. 25, 1990); Mallas v. Kolak, 721 F. Supp. 748, 751 (M.D.N.C. 1989); Schandl v. Heye, No. 86-6219, slip op. at 2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 1986); Dyrdra v. Comm’r, No. 85-0-41, slip op. at 2 (D. Neb. Oct. 28, 1985); Conklin v. United States, No. 83-C-587, slip op. at 2-3 (D. Colo. Feb. 26, 1985); Green v. IRS, 556 F. Supp. 79, 80 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir. 1984) (unpublished table decision); see also Gardner v. United States, No. 96-1467, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2195, at *18 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 1999) (finding that by virtue of § 7852(e) IRS is “exempt” from amendment provisions of Privacy Act), summary affirmance granted on other grounds, No. 99-5089, 1999 WL 728359 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 4, 1999).
Consistent with the OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,958, 28,969 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf, courts have routinely expressed disfavor toward litigants who attempt to invoke the subsection (g)(1)(A) amendment remedy as a basis for collateral attacks on judicial or quasi-judicial determinations recorded in agency records. See, e.g., Sydnor v. OPM, 336 F. App’x 175, 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (concluding that “a collateral attack upon that which has been or could have been the subject of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding” lies “outside the scope of the Privacy Act”); Jones v. MSPB, 216 F. App’x 608, 609 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of amendment claim because “the statements accurately reflect administrative decisions”); Cooper v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 05-0314, 2006 WL 637817, at *2-3 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2006) (law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of claim under Privacy Act that had been decided against plaintiff in district court and affirmed by court of appeals); Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 361 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he Privacy Act does not allow a court to alter records that accurately reflect an administrative decision, or the opinions behind that administrative decision.”); Milhous v. EEOC, No. 97-5242, 1998 WL 152784, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 1998) (“The Privacy Act may not be used to challenge unfavorable agency decisions. It is intended solely to be used to correct factual or historical errors.”); Douglas v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 33 F.3d 784, 785 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Privacy Act does not authorize relitigation of the substance of agency decisions”; “the right response . . . is to correct the disposition under the Administrative Procedure Act”); Bailey v. VA, No. 94-55092, 1994 WL 417423, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 1994) (plaintiff may not use Privacy Act to collaterally attack grant or denial of benefits); Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994) (Privacy Act may not be used “as a rhetorical cover to attack VA benefits determinations”); Edwards v. Rozzi, No. 92-3008, 1992 WL 133035, at *1 (6th Cir. June 12, 1992) (“[T]he Privacy Act may not be used to challenge unfavorable agency decisions.”); Geurin v. Dep’t of the Army, No. 90-16783, 1992 WL 2781, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 1992) (doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of claims under Privacy Act that had been decided against plaintiff by United States Claims Court in prior action under 28 U.S.C. § 1491); Pellerin v. VA, 790 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir. 1986) (amendment lawsuit challenging VA disability benefits determination dismissed on ground that 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) (later repealed, now see 38 U.S.C. § 511 (2006)) limits judicial review of VA’s determinations; noting that Privacy Act “‘may not be employed as a skeleton key for reopening consideration of unfavorable federal agency decisions’” (quoting Rogers v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 607 F. Supp. 697, 699 (N.D. Cal. 1985))); New-Howard v. Shinseki, No. 09-5350, 2012 WL 2362546, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2012) (“Plaintiff’s placement in the position of Office Automation Clerk and her placement in the FERS system may have been substantively incorrect, to the extent that such placement occurred, the records in her file accurately reflect what occurred in August 2005. As a result, the proper procedure for Plaintiff to employ in order to correct the error is to pursue the matter before the MSPB.”); Hardy v. McHugh, 692 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80-81 (D.D.C. 2010) (rejecting claim seeking correction of Army memorandum of reprimand including “implication that [plaintiff] intentionally misrepresented his educational credentials” because “the Army’s judgment is based on accurate facts” and because plaintiff “presents the same facts that have been considered by various Army boards [including Army Board for Correction of Military Records] and asks [the court] to substitute [its] judgment for theirs”); Jackson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 2:06-CV-02157, 2008 WL 539925, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2008) (ruling that plaintiff may not bring amendment lawsuit under Privacy Act to re-litigate determination of Federal Employees’ Compensation Act benefits); Davenport v. Harvey, No. 06-CV-02669, slip op. at 8 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) (rejecting claim “seek[ing] to alter factual findings and conclusion made by the [DOD Office of Hearings and Appeals] [administrative judge] as part of Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of his security clearance”), aff’d in pertinent part, vacated in part, & remanded sub nom. Davenport v. McHugh, 372 F. App’x 820 (9th Cir. 2010); Lee v. Geren, 480 F. Supp. 2d 198, 209 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2007) (finding that plaintiff “is not seeking to correct any true errors in his records” but instead “is hoping that this Court will expunge all references in his records to an adverse personnel action that he could not challenge directly because the CSRA precludes such review”); Lechliter v. Dep’t of Army, No. 04-814, 2006 WL 462750, at *2-3 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2006) (“To the extent that [plaintiff] is asking [the court] to alter the ultimate determination by the Department that he is not disabled, rather than to correct factual errors recited in his records, such relief is outside that provided by the Privacy Act.”); Levant v. Roche, 384 F. Supp. 2d 262, 270 (D.D.C. 2005) (concluding that plaintiff’s “true complaint is not about the accuracy of his records, but about the underlying decision [not to promote him to the rank of major general, which those records] reflect”); Byrnes v. MSPB, No. 04-742, 2005 WL 486156, at *2-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2005) (ruling that plaintiff could not collaterally attack “an inartfully drafted settlement agreement” terminating a lawsuit by seeking to amend agreement to include a provision requiring MSPB to “depublish” its prior decision); Bernard v. DOD, 362 F. Supp. 2d 272, 280-81 (D.D.C. 2005) (dismissing plaintiff’s amendment claim because plaintiff did not “seek to correct a factual or historical error” but rather challenged agency’s substantive judgments or decisions); Fields v. NRC, No. 98-1714, slip op. at 1-2, 5-7 (D.D.C. May 12, 1999) (stating that Privacy Act may not be used to collaterally attack NRC conclusion, as Act is not vehicle for amending judgments of federal officials); Gowan v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. 90-94, slip op. at 26, 33 (D.N.M. Sept. 1, 1995) (commenting that “Privacy Act, unfortunately, may not be used as a collateral attack on the improper preferral of charges [for court martial], nor may the Privacy Act be used as a method for the Court to oversee the activities of the armed services”), aff’d, 148 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 1998); Williams v. McCausland, 90 Civ. 7563, 1994 WL 18510, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 1994) (MSPB properly denied plaintiff’s request to supplement record of his administrative proceeding before MSPB because request “constitutes an attempt to contest the MSPB’s determination on the merits of his request for a stay of his removal”); Smith v. VA, No. CV-93-B-2158-S, slip op. at 4-5 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 1994) (following Pellerin and holding that plaintiff could not use Privacy Act to challenge dishonorable discharge or denial of VA disability benefits); Smith v. Cont’l Assurance Co., No. 91 C 0963, 1991 WL 164348, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 1991) (plaintiff cannot use Privacy Act to collaterally attack agency decision regarding her Federal Employees Health Benefit Act claim); Rowan v. USPS, No. 82-C-6550, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17042, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 1984) (Privacy Act not “a means for all governmental employees to have unflattering appraisals removed from their personnel files or shaded according to their own whims or preferences”); Leib v. VA, 546 F. Supp. 758, 762 (D.D.C. 1982) (“The Privacy Act was not intended to be and should not be allowed to become a ‘backdoor mechanism’ to subvert the finality of agency determinations.”); Lyon v. United States, 94 F.R.D. 69, 72 (W.D. Okla. 1982) (Privacy Act claim cannot be “a backdoor mechanism to subvert authority bestowed upon the Secretary of Labor to handle employee compensation claims”; the FECA “provides the exclusive method of presenting compensation claims resulting from on-the-job injuries of federal employees”); Allen v. Henefin, 2 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. (P-H) ¶ 81,056, at 81,147 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 1980) (dismissing lawsuit seeking amendment of supervisor evaluation forms and comments, for failure to exhaust, but noting that “there is considerable doubt as to the permissibility of a Privacy Act suit to collaterally attack a final agency personnel determination of this type”); Weber v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. C-3-78-146, slip op. at 3-4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 1979) (Privacy Act not proper means “to arbitrate and determine a dispute over job classification”); Bashaw v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 468 F. Supp. 1195, 1196-97 (E.D. Wis. 1979) (citing OMB Guidelines with approval and holding that amendment remedy is “neither a necessary nor an appropriate vehicle for resolving the merits of the plaintiff’s [discrimination] claims”); Kennedy v. Andrus, 459 F. Supp. 240, 242 (D.D.C. 1978) (noting that OMB Guidelines “clearly forbid collateral attack in the case of final judicial or quasi-judicial actions” and observing that “the same considerations would seem to apply to agency personnel actions, such as the reprimand here, for collateral attack under the Privacy Act could undermine the effectiveness of agency grievance systems”), aff’d, 612 F.2d 586 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (unpublished table decision); cf. Subh v. Dep’t of Army, No. 1:10cv433, 2010 WL 4961613, at *4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2010) (rejecting plaintiff’s attempt “to rewrite history to pretend that he correctly answered ‘yes’ to question 22 [on Standard Form 86, the ‘Questionnaire for National Security Positions,’] when in fact he falsely answered ‘no’” because “[t]he Privacy Act plainly does not exist to allow applicants to obtain such a ‘do-over’ of their security forms in the guise of an administrative ‘correction’”); Doe v. HHS, 871 F. Supp. 808, 814-15 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (“[T]he specific reporting provisions encompassed in the [Health Care Quality Improvement] Act supersede[] any claims [plaintiff] might have under the Privacy Act.”), aff’d, 66 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision).
Federal prisoners frequently attempt to invoke the subsection (g)(1)(A) amendment remedy as a basis for a collateral attack on a conviction or the duration of a sentence. Just as in the damages context (see “Damages Lawsuits under (g)(1)(C),” below), courts have frequently ruled that unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated in a prior proceeding, the prisoner’s exclusive remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See, e.g., King v. Johns, No. 4:10cv1835, 2010 WL 4065405, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 14, 2010) (“[A] complaint seeking relief under . . . § 552a is not a permissible alternative to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the plaintiff essentially challenges the legality of his confinement.”); Truesdale v. DOJ, 731 F. Supp. 2d 3, 11 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing Privacy Act claims because a ruling in plaintiff’s favor would impact the duration of his confinement, and should be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “not by way of a suit brought under the Privacy Act”); Davis v. United States, No. 09-1961, 2010 WL 2011549, at *1 n.1 (D. Md. May 18, 2010) (“[T]o the extent Petitioner believes that his sentence should be modified, such claims may only be made in the context of a habeas petition.”); Brown v. BOP, 498 F. Supp. 2d. 298, 303-04 (D.D.C. 2007) (“The Privacy Act is not the proper means by which a prisoner may collaterally attack his sentence absent a showing that his sentence has been invalidated in a prior proceeding.”); Forrester v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 310 F. Supp. 2d 162, 168-70 (D.D.C. 2004) (concluding that reaching plaintiff’s Privacy Act claim seeking an order to expunge information “would have a probabilistic impact on his confinement . . . and therefore plaintiff may only raise [such a claim] in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus”); Graham v. Hawk, 857 F. Supp. 38, 40-41 (W.D. Tenn. 1994) (“The Privacy Act is not a means of circumventing [habeas] exhaustion requirement.”), aff’d, 59 F.3d 170 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision).
In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a plaintiff had no right to amend the record at issue even though that record was only “exempt from the access requirements of the Act.” Smith v. United States, 142 F. App’x 209, 210 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (emphasis added). In other words, the court explained, “the scope of accessibility and the scope of amendment under the Privacy Act are the same.” Id. (agreeing with Baker v. Dep’t of the Navy, 814 F.2d 1381, 1384-85 (9th Cir. 1987), which involved a record that the plaintiff had obtained through a FOIA request but that was not contained in a system of records as required by subsection (d)(1), and with Wentz v. DOJ, 772 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 1985) (alternative holding), which involved a record that had been exempted from subsection (d)(1) pursuant to subsection (j)(2)). In Smith, the plaintiff sought to amend a report that was “prepared in response to [his Federal Tort Claims Act] claim.” 142 F. App’x at 210. Interestingly, the court explained that because this report “was prepared in reasonable anticipation of a civil suit or proceeding” within the meaning of subsection (d)(5), “[t]he report is . . . also exempt from the amendment requirements of the Act.” Id. Thus, the court concluded, the amendment claim was “barred by exemption.” Id. Subsection (d)(5) is discussed below under “Ten Exemptions.”
It has even been held that the Civil Service Reform Act’s (CSRA) comprehensive remedial scheme operates to deprive a court of subsection (g)(1)(A) jurisdiction to order the amendment of an allegedly inaccurate job description in a former federal employee’s personnel file. See Kleiman v. Dep’t of Energy, 956 F.2d 335, 338 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (refusing to allow exhaustive remedial scheme of CSRA to be “impermissibly frustrated” by granting review of personnel decisions under Privacy Act); see also Wills v. OPM, No. 93-2079, slip op. at 3-4 (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 1994) (alternative holding) (per curiam) (where challenge to merits of statement on SF-50 was actually complaint regarding adverse employment decision, jurisdiction was proper under CSRA); Vessella v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. 92-2195, 1993 WL 230172, at *2 (1st Cir. June 28, 1993) (citing Kleiman and holding that plaintiff could not “bypass the CSRA’s regulatory scheme” by bringing a Privacy Act claim for the same alleged impermissible adverse personnel practices that he challenged before the MSPB, even though the MSPB dismissed his claims as untimely); Lee v. Geren, 480 F. Supp. 2d 198, 206, 208 (D.D.C. 2007) (following “the course set by [Kleiman]” by “evaluat[ing] the merits of plaintiff’s claims . . . in a way that does not do violence to the CSRA” but ultimately finding that “[t]here is simply nothing inaccurate about” plaintiff’s records).
Similarly, the D.C. Circuit has held that “[t]he proper means by which to seek a change to military records is through a proceeding before the . . . Board for Correction of Military Records,” not under the Privacy Act. Glick v. Dep’t of the Army, No. 91-5213, 1992 WL 168004, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 1992) (per curiam); see also Cargill v. Marsh, 902 F.2d 1006, 1007-08 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of Privacy Act claim; proper means to seek substantive change in military records is through proceeding before the Boards for Correction of Records for the various services under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) (2006) (amended 2003 to take into account establishment of DHS)); Doe v. Dep’t of the Navy, 764 F. Supp. 1324, 1327 (N.D. Ind. 1991) (“plaintiff is not free to choose to attempt amendment of his military records under the Privacy Act alone without resort to the records correction board remedy”); cf. Hardy v. McHugh, 692 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80-81 (D.D.C. 2010) (rejecting claim seeking correction of Army memorandum of reprimand including “implication that [plaintiff] intentionally misrepresented his educational credentials” because “the Army’s judgment is based on accurate facts” and because plaintiff “presents the same facts that have been considered by various Army boards [including Army Board for Correction of Military Records] and asks [the court] to substitute [its] judgment for theirs”); Walker v. United States, No. 93-2728, 1998 WL 637360, at *14 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 1998) (citing Cargill and finding plaintiff’s claim “unavailing” to extent that he “is attempting to use the Privacy Act as a vehicle for his collateral attack on the Army’s allegedly improper failure to correct his military records”), aff’d, 184 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision). But see Diederich v. Dep’t of the Army, 878 F.2d 646, 647-48 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that “Privacy Act claims were properly before the district court” and that plaintiff was not required to further exhaust administrative remedies before asserting claim for amendment of military records where his direct request to Army for correction had been stalled before appeals board for several months); see also Corrections of Military Records Under the Privacy Act, Defense Privacy Board Advisory Opinion 4, available at http://dpclo.defense.gov/privacy/About_The_Office/opinions/04.html (affording review under Privacy Act for factual matters only but noting that challenges to judgmental decisions may be made to the Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records).
It should be noted that several courts have ruled that statutes that provide other avenues of redress, such as the CSRA, can bar certain kinds of subsection (g)(1)(C) damages actions. These cases are discussed below under “Damages Lawsuits under (g)(1)(C).” – Courts can order an agency to amend records in accordance with a request “or in such other way as the court may direct.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(2)(A).
The Act contemplates “expungement [of inaccuracies] and not merely redress by supplement.” R.R. v. Dep’t of the Army, 482 F. Supp. 770, 774 (D.D.C. 1980); see also Smith v. Nixon, 807 F.2d 197, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 65-66 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In addition, several courts have concluded that judges have the equitable power, even apart from the Privacy Act, to order the expungement of records when the affected individual’s privacy interest greatly outweighs the government’s interest in maintaining the records. See, e.g., Doe v. U.S. Air Force, 812 F.2d 738, 740-41 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Fendler v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 774 F.2d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 1985); Chastain v. Kelley, 510 F.2d 1232, 1235-38 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Ezenwa v. Gallen, 906 F. Supp. 978, 986 (M.D. Pa. 1995); NTEU v. IRS, 601 F. Supp. 1268, 1273 (D.D.C. 1985); cf. Johnson v. Sessions, No. 92-201, 1992 WL 212408, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 1992) (refusing to invoke equitable powers to expunge plaintiff’s arrest record because court did not have jurisdiction to order FBI to violate its own regulations which require FBI to wait for authorization from appropriate judicial authority before expunging arrest record). But see Scruggs v. United States, 929 F.2d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1991) (questioning jurisdictional power of courts to order expungement of records that satisfy Privacy Act’s requirements).
Once an agency offers to destroy a record in response to an expungement request, the lawsuit is at an end and the agency cannot be compelled to affirmatively determine and announce that the challenged record violated the Act. See Reuber v. United States, 829 F.2d 133, 144-49 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also Comm. in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Metadure Corp. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 1368, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). But see Doe v. U.S. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 483 F. Supp. 539, 551 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
B. Access Lawsuits under (g)(1)(B)
“Whenever any agency . . . refuses to comply with an individual request under subsection (d)(1) of this section [the individual may bring a civil action against the agency].” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(B).
– Courts can enjoin the agency from withholding records and order their production to the individual. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(3)(A).
Just as under the FOIA, a requester must comply with agency procedures and exhaust all available administrative remedies – through pursuit of an access request to the agency and, if that request is denied, through an administrative appeal – prior to bringing a subsection (g)(1)(B) action.
Because “[t]he language in [subsections (d)(1) and (g)] does not expressly require exhaustion of particular administrative remedies,” Taylor v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 127 F.3d 470, 476 (5th Cir. 1997), “[t]here is no statutory requirement of exhaustion related to a request for access to records. To the extent exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite,” Wadhwa v. VA, 342 F. App’x 860, 862-63 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Taylor, 127 F.3d at 475-76) (emphases added). Rather, courts have required plaintiffs seeking access to records to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the “jurisprudential exhaustion doctrine.” See, e.g., id. Thus, in Taylor the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded: “[Plaintiff’s] failure to exhaust administrative remedies did not constitute a jurisdictional bar to assertion of his claim [for access to records.] . . .However, our inquiry does not end here because . . . application of the jurisprudential exhaustion doctrine in this case indicates that . . . [plaintiff’s] claims under the Privacy Act must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id. at 476-77. Likewise, in Wadhwa the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit “disagree[d] with the District Court’s conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain [plaintiff’s] claim [for access to records] under the Privacy Act because [plaintiff] failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.” 342 F. App’x at 862; see also Buckley v. Schaul, 135 F. App’x 960, 960 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that “even in the absence of an explicit exhaustion requirement, a district court may in its discretion require such exhaustion”). As noted above, access lawsuits differ in this respect from amendment lawsuits. See also, e.g., Kvech v. Holder, No. 10-cv-545, 2011 WL 4369452, at *8 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2011) (“While the Privacy Act requires that plaintiffs first resort to administrative remedies for denials of requests to amend records, . . . the statute does not contain a similar requirement with respect to an access claim.”). Because subsection (d)(2) regarding amendment by its terms requires exhaustion, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2); see also Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 137-38 (3d Cir. 1992) (“These provisions entail a requirement that the plaintiff exhaust her administrative remedies before she can take advantage of [subsection (g)(1)(A)].” (citing Dickson v. OPM, 828 F.2d 32, 40-41 (D.C. Cir. 1987))), that requirement is jurisdictional in nature, id. See also Taylor, 127 F.3d at 475 (“Whenever the Congress statutorily mandates that a claimant exhaust administrative remedies, the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional because it is tantamount to a legislative investiture of exclusive original jurisdiction in the agency. However, in the absence of a statutory requirement of exhaustion . . . the jurisprudential doctrine of exhaustion controls. The jurisprudential exhaustion doctrine is not jurisdictional in nature.” (citations omitted)).
For cases in which the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not making an access request in conformity with agency regulations, see Vaughn v. Danzig, 18 F. App’x 122, 125 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Taylor, 127 F.3d at 473-78; Godaire v. Napolitano, No. 3:10cv01266, 2010 WL 6634572, at *7 (D. Conn. Nov. 17, 2010); Ioane v. Comm’r of IRS, No. 3:09-CV-00243, 2010 WL 2600689, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2010); Sterrett v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. 09-CV-2083, 2010 WL 330086, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2010); Gadd v. United States, No. 4:08CV04229, 2010 WL 60953, at *12 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 5, 2010), aff’d, 392 F. App’x 503 (8th Cir. 2010); Ramstack v. Dep’t of the Army, 607 F. Supp. 2d 94, 102-03 (D.D.C. 2009); Willis v. DOJ, 581 F. Supp. 2d 57, 69-70 (D.D.C. 2008); Mulhern v. Gates, 525 F. Supp. 2d 174, 187 (D.D.C. 2007); Brown v. DOJ, No. 02-2662, slip op. at 20-24 (N.D. Ala. June 21, 2005); MacLeod v. IRS, No. 99-1088, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9327, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2001); Broaddrick v. Executive Office of the President, 139 F. Supp. 2d 55, 61 (D.D.C. 2001), aff’d per curiam, No. 01-5178 (D.C. Cir. May 1, 2002); Scaife v. IRS, No. 02-1805, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22661, at *8 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2003); Flowers v. Executive Office of the President, 142 F. Supp. 2d 38, 44 (D.D.C. 2001); Walker v. Henderson, No. 98 C 3824, 1999 WL 39545, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 1999), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 99-1615 (7th Cir. May 27, 1999); Reeves v. United States, No. 94-1291, 1994 WL 782235, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 1994), aff’d, 108 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision); Guzman v. United States, No. S-93-1949, slip op. at 3-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 1994); Hass v. U.S. Air Force, 848 F. Supp. 926, 930 (D. Kan. 1994); Gergick v. Austin, No. 89-0838-CV-W-2, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7338, at *13-16 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 29, 1992), aff’d, No. 92-3210 (8th Cir. July 9, 1993); Wood v. IRS, No. 1:90-CV-2614, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19707, at *8 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 1991); Searcy v. SSA, No. 91-C-26 J, slip op. at 8-11 (D. Utah June 25, 1991) (magistrate’s recommendation), adopted (D. Utah Sept. 19, 1991), aff’d, No. 91-4181 (10th Cir. Mar. 2, 1992); Crooker v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 577 F. Supp. 1217, 1217-18 (D.D.C. 1983); Lilienthal v. Parks, 574 F. Supp. 14, 18 & n.7 (E.D. Ark. 1983); Gibbs v. Rauch, No. 77-59, slip op. at 2-3 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 1978); Larsen v. Hoffman, 444 F. Supp. 245, 256 (D.D.C. 1977); cf. Banks v. DOJ, 605 F. Supp. 2d 131, 139 (D.D.C. 2009) (concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to instant request because he did not pay record duplication fees for earlier request); Nurse v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 231 F. Supp. 2d 323, 331 (D.D.C. 2002) (“[W]hile the FOIA requires that a request must ‘[reasonably] describe’ the records, Privacy Act requests require greater specificity.”).
For cases in which the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing an administrative appeal after receiving a denial of the access request, see Yee v. Solis, No. C-08-4259, 2010 WL 1655816, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010), aff’d on other grounds, No. 10-16376, 2012 WL 902895 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012); Gadd, 2010 WL 60953, at *12; Bettweiser v. Lucas, No. 06-CIV-0142, 2007 WL 2601089, at *2 (D. Idaho Sept. 10, 2007); Clemmons v. DOJ, No. 06-00305, 2007 WL 1020796, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2007); Sussman v. DOJ, No. 03-3618, 2006 WL 2850608, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2006); Glenn v. Rumsfeld, No. C 05-01787, 2006 WL 515626, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2006); Biondo v. Dep’t of the Navy, 928 F. Supp. 626, 630-33 (D.S.C. 1995), aff’d, 86 F.3d 1148 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); Hass v. U.S. Air Force, 848 F. Supp. 926, 930 (D. Kan. 1994); cf. Ramstack, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 104 (defendant bears burden of proving affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies). But see Fischer v. FBI, No. 07-2037, 2008 WL 2248711, at *2 (D.D.C. May 29, 2008) (excusing failure to file an administrative appeal where agency had previously remanded request on administrative appeal and requester apparently did not understand that he had to file a second appeal after agency reprocessed the request); Mumme v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 150 F. Supp. 2d 162, 171 (D. Me. 2001) (refusing to “strictly apply formalistic procedural rules against [p]laintiff” because “[p]rocedural rules . . . cut both ways,” and it was not clear that agency’s response letter “included any written explanation of the partial grant of [p]laintiff’s appeal as required by [its] regulation”), aff’d, No. 01-2256 (1st Cir. June 12, 2002).
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has also noted that an individual cannot “constructively exhaust” his administrative remedies under the Privacy Act, as “the Privacy Act contains no equivalent to FOIA’s ‘constructive exhaustion’ provision [5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)].” Pollack v. DOJ, 49 F.3d 115, 116 n.1 (4th Cir. 1995) (only FOIA claim was properly before district court); see also Gadd, 2010 WL 60953, at *12 (citing Pollack and dismissing access claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Sussman v. DOJ, No. 03-3618, 2006 WL 2850608, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2006) (“The Privacy Act . . . does not allow for ‘constructive exhaustion,’ and prohibits a requester from filing an action without having obtained a response from the agency.”); Anderson v. USPS, 7 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (citing