Court Opinion

ID: 2963661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:40.593922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.454885
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 18, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                   _______________

        No. 94-1898

                   H. RAYMOND KELLETT, JR., AND LAUREL G. KELLETT,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                           UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                [Hon. Mart in F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                           __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                             _____________

                                 ____________________

            H. Raymond Kellett, Jr., and Laurel G. Kellett on brief pro se.
            ______________________       _________________
            Paul M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, and Gretchen Leah  Witt,
            ______________                                ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ___________________

                      Per  curiam.   H.  Raymond  Kellett,  Jr.,1 alleges
                      Per  curiam.
                      ___________

            violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.   552a, by the Bureau

            of Prisons ("BOP") and  seeks damages pursuant to 5  U.S.C.  

            552a(g)(4)(A)  & (B).    The district  court granted  summary

            judgment in favor of BOP.  We now affirm.

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                                  FACTUAL BACKGROUND
                                  FACTUAL BACKGROUND
                                  __________________

                      Kellett, admitted to the New Hampshire bar in 1975,

            acted as a closing attorney for a federally insured bank.  In

            1991, he pled guilty  to making false statements to  the bank

            and  to obstructing  justice by  attempting to  influence the

            grand jury  testimony of his  secretary.  The  district court

            sentenced him  to serve  one year  and one day  at a  federal

            prison in  Allenwood, Pennsylvania, beginning on  January 28,

            1992.  

                      After about  three months at Allenwood  -- in April

            1992 --  prison officials recommended Kellett  for a transfer

            to  a community corrections center ("CCC").  On May 17, 1992,

            Kellett signed  documents necessary  to effect his  transfer.

            However,  in June,  officials told  Kellett that  because the

            prosecutor  in his  case,  Assistant  U.S. Attorney  Margaret

            Hinkle  ("Hinkle"),  had  objected,  in  accordance  with  an
                                
            ____________________

            1.  Kellett's  wife,  Laurel Kellett,  is  also a  plaintiff,
            informal  BOP policy,2 the  transfer recommendation  would be
            seeking damages for loss of consortium.  

            2.  Officials told  Kellett that BOP had  an unwritten policy
            of seeking  the prosecutor's  approval or concurrence  in CCC
            placements for inmates sentenced to one year or less and that
            his sentence was short enough to come within the policy.

                                         -3-
                                          3

            rescinded.  The record indicates that  Hinkle had objected to

            Kellett's  transfer  during  a  telephone  conversation  with

            Kellett's case manager, Robert Adams.  Although the record is

            not entirely clear,  it appears that  Adams's notes from  his

            conversation  with  Hinkle  were  placed  in  Kellett's  file

            sometime in June.  

                      Invoking    administrative    procedures,   Kellett

            appealed the  transfer denial.  After  Allenwood's warden, F.

            C. Sizer, Jr., upheld  the denial, Kellett appealed to  BOP's

            deputy regional director N. Lee Conner.   Conner again denied

            the appeal, stating:

                      [Despite  an  initial  favorable  halfway
                      house   recommendation,]   upon   further
                      review and contact  with other  agencies,
                      it was determined  CCC placement would be
                      inappropriate.  This is based on the fact
                      you   were   convicted   of   Obstructing
                      Justice, which involved the  intimidation
                                                   ____________
                      and   coercion   against   one  of   your
                      _________________________________________
                      employees to lie for you before the Grand
                      ________________________
                      Jury.   As a result of  this information,
                      staff   at  [Allenwood]   determined  CCC
                      placement would be inappropriate.

            (emphasis  added).   Kellett  appealed  Conner's  decision to

            BOP's   Washington,  D.C.,  office,   arguing  that   it  was

            apparently   based   on   inaccurate  information   regarding

            intimidation  and   coercion.     National   inmate   appeals

            administrator John  Megathlin denied  the appeal.   Megathlin

            determined  that  Sizer  had properly  denied  CCC  placement

            because of:  (1) the  nature of Kellett's  criminal offenses,

            and (2) the short length of Kellett's sentence.

                                         -4-
                                          4

                      Meanwhile, Kellett sought  copies of Adams's  notes

            and other documents relating to his transfer.  In response to

            Kellett's inquiries, Adams  and Conner both told  him that he

            would  have to submit a  request to BOP's  general counsel in

            Washington, D.C.  Kellett never submitted such a request.

                      Kellett served his sentence  and, upon release from

            prison, filed this  suit.  Kellett alleges that BOP willfully

            violated the so-called  "accuracy provision"  of the  Privacy

            Act, 5  U.S.C.    552a(g)(1)(C),  because Kellett's  transfer

            denial was  based on inaccurate information  contained in his

            file.  Kellett claims  the record contained two inaccuracies:

            (1) that his  obstruction-of-justice conviction resulted from

            intimidation and coercion; and (2) that Kellett had caused  a

            loss of $800,000 by making false statements.  He also alleges

            that BOP violated the "access provision" of the  Privacy Act,

            5 U.S.C.   552a(d)(1), because BOP  did not turn over to  him

            copies   of  Adams's  notes   allegedly  containing  Hinkle's

            comments.   After Kellett filed requests  for admissions, the

            district court granted BOP's motion to stay discovery.  

                      BOP filed  a motion to dismiss,  which the district

            court converted to a motion for summary judgment.  Kellett v.
                                                               _______

            United  States, 856  F.  Supp. 65,  68  (D.N.H. 1994).    BOP
            ______________

            supported its  motion with  three affidavits --  from Patrick

            Casey  (Sizer's predecessor  at  Allenwood), deputy  regional

                                         -5-
                                          5

            director  Conner, and inmate appeals administrator Megathlin.

            Kellett objected to the affidavits on several grounds.

                      The district court granted summary judgment.  As to

            the  accuracy   claim,  the  court  held   that  the  alleged

            inaccuracies in Kellett's file had not proximately caused the

            decision to deny CCC placement:

                      Kellett's  denial  of  CCC placement  was
                      justified on the basis of the seriousness
                      of his underlying offense and  the length
                      of his sentence, regardless of the amount
                      of loss  involved  or the  nature of  the
                      obstruction of justice  conviction.   The
                      evidence makes it pellucid  that $800,000
                      loss    figure    and    the    erroneous
                      circumstances  regarding the  obstruction
                      of justice were not  substantially relied
                      on in  rendering the decision to deny CCC
                      placement.   Even  if these  factors were
                      considered    to   some    degree   their
                      consideration  would  have been  harmless
                      since there was sufficient cause  to deny
                      Kellett  CCC  placement   based  on   the
                      seriousness of the underlying offense and
                      brevity of the sentence received.

            Id. at 71.  The court did not consider Kellett's objection to
            ___

            the  trio of  affidavits.   Additionally, the  district court

            noted, but did not hold, that Kellett "would have difficulty"

            establishing  that   BOP  had  willfully   and  intentionally

            maintained  inaccurate records.  As  to the access claim, the

            court held  that  applicable regulations  exempted  Kellett's

            records from the access  provisions of the Privacy Act.   Id.
                                                                      ___

            at 68-69.  This appeal followed.

                                         -6-
                                          6

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                      After  reciting the  standard  of review,  we  will

            address separately Kellett's accuracy and access claims.

            A.  Standard of Review
            ______________________

                      We  review the  district court's  grant of  summary

            judgment de  novo, considering  the facts  in the light  most
                     __  ____

            favorable  to the nonmoving party.  Udo  v. Tomes, 54 F.3d 9,
                                                ___     _____

            12  (1st Cir. 1995).  Summary judgment should be granted when

            "the  pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

            admissions on  file, together  with affidavits, if  any, show

            that there  is no genuine  issue as to any  material fact and

            that the moving party is  entitled to a judgment as  a matter

            of  law."   Fed.  R. Civ.  P. 56(c).    "Even in  cases where

            elusive  concepts such  as  motive or  intent  are at  issue,

            summary judgment  may be  appropriate if the  nonmoving party

            rests   merely   upon   conclusory  allegations,   improbable

            inferences,  and unsupported  speculation."   Medina-Munoz v.
                                                          ____________

            R.J. Reynolds Tobacco  Co., 896  F.2d 5, 8  (1st Cir.  1990).
            __________________________

            "Brash conjecture,  coupled with earnest hope  that something

            concrete  will  eventually  materialize, is  insufficient  to

            block  summary judgment."  Dow v. United Bhd. of Carpenters &
                                       ___    ___________________________

            Joiners, 1 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir. 1993).
            _______

                                         -7-
                                          7

            B.  The Accuracy Claim
            ______________________

                      To establish a violation of the  accuracy provision

            of  the  Privacy Act,  a plaintiff  must  show that:  (1) the

            agency failed  to maintain  accurate records; (2)  an adverse

            agency  decision   resulted  from  the  failure  to  maintain

            accurate records;  and (3) the agency's  actions were willful

            and intentional.   See,  e.g., White  v. Office of  Personnel
                               ___   ____  _____     ____________________

            Management,  840 F.2d  85,  87 n.1  (D.C.  Cir. 1988).    For
            __________

            purposes  of the  decision  below and  this  appeal, BOP  has

            assumed that  Kellett's record contains  both the  inaccurate

            loss  figure and the inaccurate characterization of Kellett's

            behavior leading to the obstruction-of-justice charge.  

                      As  noted  above,  the  district  court  held  that

            Kellett had failed to establish  the requisite causation.  On

            appeal,  Kellett  challenges  the  district  court's  holding

            because, among other reasons,  the court relied on affidavits

            alleged  to  violate Fed.  R. Civ.  P. 56(e).   We  affirm on

            different grounds, see Acha v. United States, 910 F.2d 28, 30
                               ___ ____    _____________

            (1st Cir. 1990) (a  court of appeals may affirm on any ground

            presented by the record), and thus do not reach the merits of

            Kellett's  arguments  regarding  causation.    After  careful

            review  of  the   record,  we  conclude   that,  as  to   the

                                         -8-
                                          8

            obstruction-of-justice   charge,   Kellett   has  failed   to

            establish that BOP's actions were willful and intentional.3

                      A  plaintiff may  establish  a willful  Privacy Act

            violation by  showing that  the agency acted  without grounds

            for  believing  its action  to  be  lawful, or  in  "flagrant

            disregard" for rights under  the Act.  See, e.g.,  Wilborn v.
                                                   ___  ____   _______

            Department  of Health & Human  Servs., 49 F.3d  597, 602 (9th
            _____________________________________

            Cir. 1995).  To survive  summary judgment, the evidence  must

            demonstrate  conduct  "greater   than  gross  negligence"  or

            conduct showing "reckless behavior and/or knowing violations"

            of  the Privacy Act.  Moskiewicz v. Department of Agric., 791
                                  __________    ____________________

            F.2d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 1986).  It is not enough to show that

            an  agency  may  have   undertaken  voluntary  actions  which

            inadvertently violated  some provision of the  Act.  Albright
                                                                 ________

            v. United States, 732 F.2d 181, 189 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
               _____________

                      Kellett  fails  to  support  his  claim   with  any

            evidence  establishing  that  BOP's  acts  were  willful   or

            intentional.    Principally, Kellett  fails  to identify  any

            reasonable basis  for BOP officials to  question the accuracy

            of  Hinkle's  statements.   To  be  sure, Kellett  repeatedly

            expressed  concern that  Hinkle  was vindictive,  but we  see

            nothing  in  the  record  upon  which  to  suggest  that  the

                                
            ____________________

            3.  As to the inaccurate loss figure, the record is devoid of
            any  indication that  BOP  officials relied  on it  in making
            their adverse determination.  Accordingly, Kellett has failed
            to carry his burden and summary judgment was appropriate.  

                                         -9-
                                          9

            officials ever  thought there  was a possibility  that Hinkle

            may have  misrepresented  the circumstances  surrounding  the

            obstruction-of-justice  charge.   The only  BOP decisionmaker

            who  actually knew  that Kellett disputed  Hinkle's statement
                          ____

            was   national   inmate   appeals  administrator   Megathlin.

            Megathlin,   however,  did   not  rely   on  the   inaccurate

            information in making his adverse decision.  Rather, as noted

            above, he  denied  Kellett's placement  on the  basis of  the

            general  nature of  Kellett's offenses  and on the  length of

            Kellett's sentence.   Simply stated, there  is no basis  upon

            which   to   conclude  that   BOP   officials  willfully   or

            intentionally  maintained  inaccurate  information  regarding

            Kellett.   Thus, summary judgment was appropriate.   Cf. Hill
                                                                 __  ____

            v. United States Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1986).  
               _______________________

            C.  The Access Claim
            ____________________

                      The  Privacy Act requires  an agency  maintaining a

            "system of records" to give individuals, upon request, access

            to their  records or to  information about them  contained in

            the system.  5 U.S.C.   552a(d)(1).  If the agency refuses to

            comply  with such a request, an individual may sue the agency

            for injunctive relief, seeking production  of the records.  5

            U.S.C.   552a(g)(1)(B) &  (g)(3)(A).  An agency may  exempt a

            system  of  records, 5  U.S.C.    552a(j),  if the  system of

            records meets certain criteria, 5 U.S.C.   552a(j)(2)(A)-(C).

            Records  are  exempt  if,   inter  alia,  they  are  "reports
                                        _____  ____

                                         -10-
                                          10

            identifiable to an  individual compiled at  any stage of  the

            process  of enforcement of  the criminal laws  from arrest or

            indictment  through release  from supervision."   5  U.S.C.  

            552a(j)(2)(C).  Such BOP reports have been exempted from both

            the access  provisions of  the Privacy  Act and  access suits

            brought  thereunder.  See 28 C.F.R.   16.97(a), (b)(3) & (9).
                                  ___

            Because the records containing  Hinkle's comments fall within

            the  scope of    552a(j)(2)(C),  the district  court properly

            granted summary judgment.

                                         III.
                                         III.
                                         ____

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                      For  the  foregoing  reasons, the  decision  of the

            district court is affirmed.
                              affirmed.
                              ________

                                         -11-
                                          11