Court Opinion

ID: 2964669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:11.920168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.919971
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1841

                                 JAMES D. HUNSBERGER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            James D. Hunsberger on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and  George B. Henderson,
            _______________                               ____________________
        II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        __

                                 ____________________

                                    March 14, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per   Curiam.    Plaintiff  James  Hunsberger  submitted
                 ____________

            requests  to the  Boston division  of  the Federal  Bureau of

            Investigation under the Freedom  of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.

               552, and  the Privacy Act,  5 U.S.C.    552a,  in which he

            sought all records that  pertained to him.  The  FBI produced

            two  responsive documents.   Plaintiff  filed suit,  claiming

            that  an inadequate search had been performed.  From an award

            of summary judgment to the FBI, he now appeals.  We affirm.

                 Extended  discussion is unnecessary.   In  recent years,

            this court has fully  articulated the standards by  which the

            adequacy of an agency search is evaluated.  See, e.g., Church
                                                        ___  ____  ______

            of Scientology  Int'l v. United  States Dep't of  Justice, 30
            _____________________    ________________________________

            F.3d 224,  230 (1st Cir. 1994); Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547,
                                            _______    ___

            559-60 (1st Cir. 1993);  Gillin v. IRS, 980 F.2d  819, 821-22
                                     ______    ___

            (1st  Cir. 1992)  (per curiam).   "The  crucial issue  is not

            whether  relevant  documents  might  exist,  but whether  the

            agency's  search was  reasonably  calculated to  discover the

            requested  documents."   Maynard, 986  F.2d at  559 (internal
                                     _______

            quotation omitted).  Such a determination, which we review de

            novo, see, e.g., Church of Scientology Int'l, 30 F.3d at 228,
                  ___  ____  ___________________________

            "is judged by  a standard of reasonableness  and depends upon

            the facts of each case."  Maynard, 986 F.2d at 559.
                                      _______

                 Based on our review of the materials presented, we agree

            that  an award  of  summary judgment  was  appropriate.   The

            affidavit  of Supervisory Special Agent John Michael Callahan

                                         -2-

            establishes that a reasonably thorough  search was undertaken

            here.     He  has  described,  in   relatively  detailed  and

            nonconclusory  fashion, the  structure  of the  agency's file

            system,  the scope  of  the search  performed at  plaintiff's

            behest, and the method by which it was conducted.  Plaintiff,

            in turn, has failed to rebut this  affidavit.  His attempt to

            adduce  "positive  indications   of  overlooked   materials,"

            Oglesby  v. Department of Army, 79 F.3d 1172, 1185 (D.C. Cir.
            _______     __________________

            1996), or to otherwise show "that the agency's search was not

            made in good  faith," Maynard,  986 F.2d at  560, amounts  to
                                  _______

            nothing more than speculation.

                 In   contending  that   the   FBI  overlooked   relevant

            documents,  plaintiff points  to  three factors.   First,  he

            notes  that a 1989 teletype (of which he first learned during

            the course of other  FOIA litigation) was sent from  New York

            to Washington with a copy to Boston.  Yet as  we explained in

            Maynard,  the fact that a document refers to the existence of
            _______

            other records  "does not  independently generate an  issue of

            material fact rendering summary  judgment improper so long as

            reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavits demonstrate the

            reasonableness  of the  agency's [subsequent]  search."   986

            F.2d at 562; accord, e.g., Weisberg v. United States Dep't of
                         ______  ____  ________    ______________________

            Justice,  705 F.2d  1344,  1351 (D.C.  Cir.  1983); see  also
            _______                                             _________

            Miller v. United States Dep't of Justice, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384
            ______    ______________________________

            (8th  Cir. 1985) ("The fact that a document once existed does

                                         -3-

            not mean that it now exists; nor does the fact that an agency

            created  a document  necessarily  imply that  the agency  has

            retained it."). 

                 Second, plaintiff insists that the FBI must have records

            pertaining to his 1969 drug prosecution in Rhode Island state

            court.   Yet his assertion that the FBI not only participated

            in that investigation but retained records pertaining thereto

            is conjectural.  And even  if accurate, that assertion  would

            nonetheless fail  to call into  question the adequacy  of the

            search as detailed in  the Callahan affidavit.   See Maynard,
                                                             ___ _______

            986 F.2d at 560 (satisfactory agency affidavit is "accorded a

            presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely

            speculative  claims   about  the   existence  ...   of  other

            documents") (internal quotations omitted).  

                 Finally, plaintiff complains  that the search failed  to

            look for entries involving possible misspellings of his name.

            Yet  "there is no  general requirement that  an agency search

            ... variant spellings."   Id.  And the fact  that the FBI did
                                      ___

            at  one point misspell plaintiff's  name does not  call for a

            different result,  especially where  the record  reveals that

            the agency had corrected such error by December 1968.

                 In the alternative,  plaintiff alleges that, because  of

            his pro se status,  the district court erred in  entering its

            ruling  without first  ensuring  that he  had  notice of  the

            summary judgment requirements.   Yet we have no occasion here

                                         -4-

            to address whether such notice must always be afforded to pro

            se litigants in  the Rule  56 context--a matter  as to  which

            courts have  differed.   Compare, e.g.,  Timms v.  Frank, 953
                                     _______  ____   _____     _____

            F.2d 281,  283-86 (7th  Cir.  1992) with,  e.g., Jacobsen  v.
                                                ____   ____  ________

            Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-67 (9th Cir. 1986).  In assessing
            ______

            the adequacy  of the agency's  search, we have  accorded full

            consideration  to  plaintiff's (untimely)  opposition  to the

            summary  judgment  motion and  have  accepted  all reasonable

            factual allegations  in  his (unsworn)  submissions as  true.

            Even  on  that  basis,  an  award  of  summary  judgment  for

            defendant would be mandated.  The failure to advise plaintiff

            of the Rule 56 procedures, even if erroneous (a  matter as to

            which we intimate no view), would thus have been harmless. 

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -5-