Estevez v. U.S. Attorney's Office for the S. Dist. of Cal.

JESUS ESTEVEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THESOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, et al., Respondents.

Case No.: 15-cv-02941-AJB-JLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 22, 2018

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

(3) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

(Doc. Nos. 45, 52)

Pending before the Court are both Petitioner Jesus Estevez ("Estevez") and Respondents the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California ("USAO"), the Federal Bureau of Prison, Western Regional Office ("BOP"), and the United States Marshal for the Southern District of California's ("USMS") (collectively referred to as "Respondents") motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 45, 52.) Both parties filed oppositions. (Doc. Nos. 55, 57.) On August 16, 2017, Estevez was granted permission to file a Sur-Reply, which was filed on September 7, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 59, 60, 62.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matters suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. For the reasons stated in more detail below, the Court DENIES Estevez's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Respondents' cross-motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

The contours of Estevez's complaint are simple—Estevez alleges that he has been denied access to records under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), the Privacy Act, and the California Public Records Act. (Doc. No. 33 at 5.)¹ The specific events leading up to the institution of this action are as follows.

On or around December 3, 1999, Estevez was transferred from Salinas State prison to federal custody in association with Grand Jury Proceedings in the Southern District of California.² (Doc. No. 33 at 6; Doc. No. 42-3 at 3.) Estevez was in state prison after being convicted during a jury trial of the following crimes in San Diego Superior Court Case Number SCD132864: (1) Assault on a Peace Officer in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245(d)(2); (2) False Imprisonment of a Hostage in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 210.5; (3) Three Counts of Forcible Rape in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2); (4) Forcible Oral Copulation in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 288a(c); (5) Assault with a Semi-Automatic Firearm in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245(b); and (6) Child Abuse in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 273a(a). (Doc. No. 52-1 at 11.) Estevez was sentenced to forty-three years and four months in prison. (Id.)

A. Inquiries with the Federal Bureau of Prisons

On February 5, 2014, Estevez sent a letter to the FOIA section of the BOP requestingdocuments pertaining to him. (Doc. No. 42-2 at 3.) On March 20, 2014, the BOP informed Estevez that his request had been received and was being forwarded to processing under Request Number 2014-05306. (Id. at 4; Doc. No. 52-1 at 11.) Subsequently, in a letter dated September 26, 2014, the BOP informed Estevez that they had located ninety-six pages of responsive records of which fifty-six were released in their entirety, thirty pages were released with certain information redacted, and ten pages were withheld in their entirety. (Doc. No. 42-2 at 7.) In regards to the ten pages, the BOA stated that it withheld these documents from full disclosure under the following exemptions: 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F). (Id.)

On October 2, 2014, Estevez filed an appeal in regards to the ten documents that were withheld in their entirety. (Id. at 8.) Thereafter, on April 13, 2015, the Office of Information Policy ("OIP") responded to Estevez stating that it affirmed the BOP's actions as it had also determined that the records Estevez sought were excused from disclosure under exemptions 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) and b(7)(F). (Id. at 10.)

B. Inquiries with the United States Marshal Service

Thereafter, on April 18, 2015, Estevez sent a letter to the USMS requesting documents pertaining to him in Grand Jury Proceedings 99-GJ-0131. (Doc. No. 42-1 at 1-2.) On October 19, 2016, the USMS, by letter, notified Estevez that they had conducted a search for responsive records to his request and found a total of two pages. (Id. at 8.) However, the USMS decided to release one page with redactions based upon exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). (Id.)

On November 8, 2016, the OIP received a letter from Estevez challenging the USMS' decision to redact information from the single page while also questioning the adequacy of the USMS' search. (Id. at 10-11.) On January 8, 2017, the OIP affirmed the USMS' actions in withholding certain information and found that the USMS conducted an adequate and reasonable search for Estevez's records. (Id. at 14.)

C. Inquiries with the United States Attorney's Office

Estevez also sent a letter to the Executive Office of the United States AttorneysFreedom of Information and Privacy Staff ("EOUSA") on May 19, 2015, requesting documents pertaining to him in Grand Jury Proceeding 99-GJ-013. (Doc. No. 42-3 at 1-2; Doc. No. 52-1 at 13.) After an exchange of several letters, on August 21, 2015, the EOUSA informed Estevez that their records search revealed no responsive documents regarding his request. (Doc. No. 42-3 at 24.)

On September 15, 2015, the OIP received an appeal from Estevez challenging the adequacy of the previous search. (Id. at 25-26.) Subsequently, on October 26, 2015, the OIP, by mail, informed Estevez that they found that the EOUSA's search was adequate and reasonable. (Id. at 28.)

On May 11, 2016, Estevez wrote a letter to the USAO requesting documents under FOIA and the California Records Act. (Id. at 30.) Specifically, Estevez argued that he had been falsely convicted and that the "government agencies" were allowing agents to abuse their authority under color of law. (Id. at 31.) On May 24, 2016, the USAO sent Estevez a letter acknowledging receipt of his request and directing him to process any further inquiries with the EOUSA. (Id. at 32.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 if the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party can satisfy this burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating the nonmoving party failed to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's case on which thenonmoving party bears the burden of proving at trial. Id. at 322-23. "Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

Once the moving party establishes the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth facts showing a genuine issue of a disputed fact remains. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 330. When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must view all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

B. Summary Judgment in a FOIA Case

"Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are resolved." Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citation omitted). However, the typical standard for summary judgment is not sufficient because the facts in a FOIA case are rarely in dispute. Minier v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996). Instead, the standard for summary judgment in a FOIA case is a two-stage inquiry. Los Angeles Times Commc'n, LLC v. Dep't of the Army, 442 F. Supp. 2d 880, 893 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

First, the court must determine if the agency has satisfied its burden in proving that it fully discharged its obligations under FOIA. Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). To establish this, the agency can demonstrate that it has "conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the question is not whether any relevant documents could exist, but rather whether the agency's search was adequate, measured by a reasonableness standard. Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Second, if the court determines that the initial burden has been met, the next step is to examine whether the agency has established that the information that it did not disclose falls within one of the nine FOIA exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); see also U.S.Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991) (holding that the burden of the agency to justify the withholding of any requested documents "remains with the agency when it seeks to justify the redaction of identifying information in a particular document as well as when it seeks to withhold an entire document."). Thus, as a whole, to prevail on summary judgment in a FOIA proceeding, where the underlying facts and inferences are construed in favor of the FOIA requester, an agency must prove that it has met both of the foregoing burdens. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 1095.

III. DISCUSSION

Estevez contests both the adequacy of Respondents' efforts to perform a reasonable search as well as Respondents' decision to redact...