Mathis v. Dep't of Justice

ERIC JEROME HUNTER MATHIS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-1712 (TJK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

September 27, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court in this case, which was brought under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, is Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 28 ("Motion").¹ For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion in its entirety.

I. Background

Plaintiff Eric Jerome Hunter Mathis, incarcerated in a state prison in Georgia and proceeding pro se, alleges in his complaint that he has been "deprived of his lawful property and rights as a United States citizen." Compl. ¶ 3. Specifically, he alleges that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") is "holding [his] personal and real property[,] personal papers, childhood photo[]s and effect[s] not excluding trust fund[] accounts[,] his patent information, financial accounts (personal, bus[]iness, checking, co[r]porate, and escrow)," id. ¶ 4, "inherited assets," id. ¶ 5, and benefits he accrued while "working two nine to fives and managing [his] own brakerepair shop," id. ¶ 6. He contends that DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the "FBI") have frozen his bank accounts. See id. ¶¶ 7-8.

In October 2015, Hunter Mathis began his quest for information about his assets by submitting a request to the FBI under FOIA. See id. ¶¶ 8, 13. DOJ and the FBI allegedly "refused [his] request" and failed to explain "why [his] accounts remain . . . frozen after so much time has passed with no criminal or civil action in the matter." Id. ¶ 7. According to Hunter Mathis, DOJ and the FBI not only denied his FOIA requests improperly, see id. ¶¶ 7-9; Am. Compl. ¶ 12, but in so doing, also violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, see Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16-18; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-22. He demands a declaratory judgment "that the acts and omission[s] . . . described [in the complaint] violated plaintiff[']s rights under the Constitution," Compl. ¶ 20, and injunctive relief "enjoin[ing] Defendant from withholding the information requested," id. ¶ 21.

As his subsequent amended complaints reflect, Hunter Mathis then expanded his search for information by allegedly directing FOIA requests to several other entities: the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), a component of the Department of Treasury ("Treasury"), see 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 10, the Department of Defense ("DoD"), see id. ¶¶ 7, 11; 3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 31, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), see 3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 27, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, see id. ¶¶ 18, 28, the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), see id. ¶¶ 19, 29, and the American Red Cross, see id. ¶ 30. The Court is obliged to construe a pro se litigant's pleadings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). To this end, the Court construes Hunter Mathis's various complaints collectively, and as raising FOIA claims against each of these entities.

II. Analysis

A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss Hunter Mathis's (1) constitutional claims; (2) claim against the Middle District of Georgia; and (3) claim against the American Red Cross.

1. Hunter Mathis's Constitutional Claims

Although Hunter Mathis alleges violations of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, see Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16-18; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-22; 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 33, he clarifies elsewhere that "this is not a 1983 suit[] or[] civil rights complaint," Pl.'s 1st Opp'n at 4; Pl.'s 2d Opp'n ¶ 26. In fact, the claims he brings are grounded in FOIA, and it is well settled that "FOIA does not offer a remedy for alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from the handling of a FOIA request." Houser v. Church, 271 F. Supp. 3d 197, 204 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). The Court therefore dismisses Hunter Mathis's constitutional claims, which similarly arise from the processing of his FOIA requests. See, e.g., Johnson, 310 F.3d at 777; Sanchez-Alanis v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 270 F. Supp. 3d 215, 219 (D.D.C. 2017).

2. FOIA Claim Against the Middle District of Georgia

Hunter Mathis asserts that the Middle District of Georgia "refused to disclose the freezing of [his] accounts and assets in 1996 or 2003." 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 28. A claim under FOIA may proceed only as against an agency of the federal government. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(a); see 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). The definition of "agency" expressly excludes "the courts of the United States." 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B). Thus, Hunter Mathis's FOIA claim against the Middle District of Georgia must be dismissed. See Gaydos v. Mansmann, No. 98-5002, 1998 WL389104, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Choate, 102 F. App'x 634, 635 (10th Cir. 2004).

3. FOIA Claim Against the American Red Cross

Hunter Mathis claims to have "donated over a billion dollars" to the American Red Cross. 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 30. Despite such generosity, the American Red Cross allegedly "refused plaintiff['s] request for information" about his contributions. Id. A threshold issue the Court must resolve to address this claim is whether the American Red Cross is an "agency" for the purpose of FOIA. Although the D.C. Circuit has not addressed the issue, the Ninth Circuit concluded in Irwin Memorial Blood Bank of S.F. Med. Soc'y v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross, 640 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1981) that it is not. See id. at 1052, 1057. The Court finds that opinion persuasive and similarly concludes that the American Red Cross is not an "agency" for FOIA purposes. Thus, the Court dismisses Hunter Mathis's FOIA claim against the American Red Cross.²

B. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Hunter Mathis's FOIA claims that survive Defendants' motion to dismiss are directed at: (1) IRS, DoD, SEC, and SSA; and (2) the FBI. The Court considers each in turn and concludes that summary judgment must be granted in favor of each Defendant.

1. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a 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). "Summary judgment is appropriately granted when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and drawingall reasonable inferences accordingly, no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in their favor." Lopez v. Council on Am.-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc., 826 F.3d 492, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

"[T]he vast majority of FOIA cases can be resolved on summary judgment . . . ." Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In FOIA cases, "to obtain summary judgment the agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested." Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 580 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). "The court may rely on a 'reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched.'" Id. at 580-81 (quoting Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68). The Court may grant summary judgment "on the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, 319 F. Supp. 3d 431, 437 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208, 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).

"To successfully challenge an agency's showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with 'specific facts' demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records." Span v. DOJ, 696 F. Supp. 2d 113, 119 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)). Hunter Mathis has not done so here. Rather, his opposition to Defendants' Motion largely reiterates the allegations of his complaint, see, e.g., Pl.'s 2d Opp'n ¶¶ 7, 16-20, 23, andopposes summary judgment without legal or factual support of any kind, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 13-14. In these circumstances, because Hunter Mathis has not opposed Defendants' factual assertions, the Court accepts them as unchallenged, see MacLeod v. DHS, No. 15-cv-1792, 2017 WL 4220398, at *9 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2017) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)), "but it must address [Defendants'] legal arguments on their merits," King v. DOJ, 245 F. Supp. 3d 153, 158 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).

2. Submissions to IRS, DoD, SEC, and SSA

FOIA requires a covered agency to "make . . . records promptly available to any person" who submits a "request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed[.]" 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). "An agency's disclosure obligations are not triggered, however, until it has received a proper FOIA request in compliance with its published regulations." Antonelli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 591 F. Supp. 2d 15, 26 (D.D.C. 2008). "[I]t is well established that a requester's 'failure to comply with [such] FOIA regulations is the equivalent of a failure to exhaust[.]'" MacLeod, 2017 WL 4220398, at *6 (alterations after first in original) (quoting West v. Jackson, 448 F. Supp. 2d 207, 211 (D.D.C. 2006)). "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required...