Hall v. Stoneman

ROYAL DANIEL HALL, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE STONEMAN et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-109 (RBW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

March 25, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff, Royal Daniel Hall, is a New York state prisoner proceeding pro se. Utilizing a form entitled "Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018), the plaintiff has sued the United States Department of Justice ("Department of Justice" or "DOJ") and three DOJ officials in the Civil Rights Division ("the Division"), Christine Stoneman, Reese Brain, and Drew Terry. See Compl. ¶ IV (Parties), ECF No. 1. The plaintiff seeks the return of his "supporting documents" that he allegedly submitted to the DOJ to investigate alleged violations of his civil rights. Compl. ¶ V (Statement of Claim). The plaintiff also seeks review of "the misconduct of [defendant] Christine Stoneman" and $30 million "for pain and suffering[.]" Compl. ¶ VI (Relief).

Construing this action as arising, inter alia, under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012), the defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defs.' Mot."), ECF No. 11. The plaintiff has filed an opposition, see Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 15, and the defendants have replied. See Amended Reply in Further Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defs.' Reply"), ECF No. 18. In addition, the Court has considered as part of the plaintiff's opposition his letter which the Court permitted to be filed on the docket on May 21, 2019 ("Pl.'s May 21, 2019 Ltr."), ECF No. 13.¹

Having carefully considered the parties' submissions, and the entire record, the Court finds that (1) the DOJ has satisfied its obligations under the FOIA, and (2) subject matter jurisdiction is lacking over the plaintiff's non-FOIA claims. Therefore, the defendants' motion will be granted for the reasons explained more fully below.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff's allegations, along with the attachments to the Complaint, seemingly suggest the assertion of two claims. First, a FOIA claim against the DOJ, and second, a claim for monetary damages against Stoneman, in her official capacity.² The facts relevant to each claim are the following.

A. The FOIA Claim

The plaintiff alleges that he "filed a Civil Rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, in which [he] submitted supporting documents[,] some of the documents were returnedto [him] and some were not. One of the important documents was grand jury minutes [he] submitted with [his] complaint." Compl. ¶ V. The plaintiff does not specify when those events occurred, but in an unaddressed FOIA request dated November 1, 2017, he "sought the return of the supporting documents that he submitted to [the Division] with his complaints in 2016 and 2017." Defs.' Mot., Declaration of Tink Cooper ("Cooper Decl.") ¶ 4, ECF No. 11-2. The DOJ's Mail Referral Unit received the request on December 27, 2017, and forwarded it to the Division on January 3, 2018.³ Id. ¶ 3. The Division's Federal Coordination and Compliance Section ("FCCS") "returned a copy of the [p]laintiff's 2017 complaint documents to him on January 17, 2018." Id. ¶ 6.

The plaintiff filed this civil action on January 11, 2019. See Compl. at 1. Thereafter, on April 19, 2019, the FCCS "returned [to the plaintiff] a copy of the documents relating to [his] 2016 complaint," after having retrieved the documents from the Federal Records Center. Defs.' Mot., Cooper Decl. ¶ 7. That release consisted of 37 responsive pages, including "16 pages of grand jury testimony and 11 pages of Lexis legal case documents." Defs.' Reply, Supplemental Declaration of Tink Cooper ("Cooper Supp. Decl.") ¶ 7, ECF No. 18-1. Only "the victim's name in the grand jury transcript" was redacted, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (2018) ("Exemption 7(C)"). Defendants' Statement of Material Facts ("Defs.' SMF") ¶ 3, ECF No. 11-1; see Defs.' Mot., Cooper Decl., Exhibit ("Ex") C (April 19, 2019 release letter).

In response to the plaintiff's opposition filed in this case, the FCCS, by letter dated June 13, 2019, "sent another copy of the 2017 documents" to the plaintiff. Defs.' Reply, Cooper Supp. Decl. ¶ 8. The supplemental release consisted of two of the plaintiff's letters datedAugust 9, 2017, and August 31, 2017, and "copies of court documents including the Dutchess County Court Judges' decision and orders and documents filed by [the] [p]laintiff's defense counsel in his criminal case." Id. The "28 [responsive] pages" were "released in full." Id., Ex. D (June 13, 2019 release letter).

B. The Claim for Damages

Apparently in response to the plaintiff's "Civil Rights complaint" submitted to the DOJ, Stoneman, in her capacity as Principal Deputy Chief of the FCCS, wrote the following in a letter to the plaintiff dated December 15, 2016.

This section coordinates the enforcement of various statutes that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion in programs that receive federal financial assistance. We also investigate complaints of discrimination on these bases against certain recipients of federal financial assistance . . . DOJ's recipients mainly include state and local (but not federal) police and sheriffs' departments, state departments of corrections, courts, and other similar entities. The circumstances you describe in your letter do not appear to allege a violation of the statutes we enforce. We regret that we cannot be of assistance to you in this matter.

Compl. Attachment, ECF No. 1-1 at 4 ("Stoneman Ltr."). Presumably considering Stoneman's response inappropriate, the plaintiff asks the Court in his Complaint "to address the misconduct of [Ms.] Stoneman" and "award [the] plaintiff for pain and suffering in the amount of [$] 30 million dollars." Compl. ¶ VI (Relief). Although it is unclear from the Complaint, the plaintiff's claim for damages appears to arise from Stoneman's letter, considering that he alleges that he was "prejudice[d]" by the DOJ's "dismiss[al] [of his] Civil Rights claim under false pretenses when [his] [C]omplaint had merit[.]" Compl. ¶ V (Statement of Claim).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss

Rule 12(b)(1) governs motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A motion pursuant to this Rule "presents a threshold challenge to the court's jurisdiction . . . ." Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting that "a Rule 12(b)(1) motion imposes on the court an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority"). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss a claim if it "lack[s] . . . subject matter jurisdiction [.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Under Rule 12(b)(1), "it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [a federal court's] limited jurisdiction," Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, see Moore v. Bush, 535 F. Supp. 2d 46, 47 (D.D.C. 2008). In deciding a motion to dismiss based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a Court is not limited to the allegations set forth in the complaint, but "may consider materials outside the pleadings . . . ." Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Because the Court must ensure its jurisdictional authority, "'the [p]laintiff's factual allegations in the complaint . . . will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion' than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim." Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13-14 (D.D.C. 2001) (alteration in original) (quoting 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350 (2d ed. 1987)).

B. Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment

The Court must "grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When ruling on a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)). The Court must therefore draw "all justifiable inferences" in the non-moving party's favor and accept the non-moving party's evidence as true. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The non-moving party, however, cannot rely on "mere allegations or denials." Burke v. Gould, 286 F.3d 513, 517 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Thus, "[c]onclusory allegations unsupported by factual data will not create a triable issue of fact." Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 185 F.3d 898, 908 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J., concurring) (alteration in original) (quoting Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 663 F.2d 120, 126-27 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). If the Court concludes that "the non[-]moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof," then the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

"FOIA cases typically are resolved on a motion for summary judgment." Ortiz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 67 F. Supp. 3d 109, 116 (D.D.C. 2014); see also Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp....