Matthews v. Exec. Office for the U.S. Attorneys

ERIC MARTIN MATTHEWS, Plaintiff v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS,FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL,OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (U.S. NAVY), Defendants

Case No. 1:20-CV-370-RP-SH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

May 10, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 13, 2020, and two Supplements (Dkts. 39, 42, 44); Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Summary Judgment, filed October 30, 2020 (Dkt. 43); and the associated response briefs. The District Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

I. Background

Plaintiff Eric Martin Matthews, acting pro se, is incarcerated in the federal correctional institution in Bastrop, Texas. In 2007, Matthews was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 262 months and 240 months for using a computer to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and distribution of child pornography via a computer. United States v. Matthews, No. 2:06-CR-14069 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2007), Dkt. 53.

From January 2018 through February 2019, Matthews submitted nine Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests to the Department of Justice Office of Litigation Counsel ("OLC"), the Department of Justice Executive Office for the United States Attorneys ("EOUSA"), the Office of the President of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), and the Department of the Navy, Naval Criminal Investigative Service ("NCIS") (collectively, "Defendants"). Specifically, Matthews made the following requests, as identified the Complaint:

Count 1 EOUSA, January 10, 2018, resubmitted May 15, 2018: "a copy of all E-mails from September 30, 2006 to March 6, 2007 that were related to or contained my name or criminal case number in them" (Dkt. 1-5 at 3)

Count 2 EOUSA, November 20, 2017, resubmitted May 15, 2018: "a copy of all emails from any computer under the control of any staff member or attorney from either the United States Attorneys Office or Assistant United States Attorneys Office in which my name or any variation there of [sic] was used" and "any emails which referenced either criminal case No. 06-14069-cr-moore, or civil case 17-14272-civ-moore" from July 10, 2017 to January 3, 2018 (Dkt. 1-4 at 2-3)

Count 3 BOP, June 21, 2018: "documents from FOOD SERVICE at the Federal Correctional Institution Englewood in Littleton, Colorado," including "a copy of the National Specification Sheets (about 40 pages) that have been filled out with the quan[t]ities needed for each item requested for 1st Quarter FY18 (OCT., NOV., DEC.,)" and "the completed Bid abstract (about 4-7 pages)" (Dkt. 1-8 at 3)

BOP, February 4 or 15, 2019: documents related to food service at FCI Englewood, including "a copy of the Inventory done on or before August 5, 2018 for 1st Quarter (Oct, Nov, Dec) FY 2019 Budget," "a copy of the National Specification Sheets (about 40 pages) that have been filled out by the Food Administrator," and "the completed Bid abstract" (Dkt. 1-10 at 2, 5)¹

Count 4 BOP, January 10, 2018: additional documents related to food service at FCI Englewood, including "a copy of the National Specification Sheets (about 40 pages) that have been filled out with the quan[t]ities neededfor each item requested for 2nd Quarter FY 18 (JAN. FEB. MAR.)" and "a copy of the completed Bid Sheets (about 4-7 pages)" (Dkt. 1-7 at 3)

Count 5 BOP, November 2, 2018: "a complete paper copy of any psychology records that pertain to or are about me" created on or after December 29, 2016 and "emails from or to . . . Doctor Vanderwalt and Doctor Williams" that contain "my name or any variation of it" (Dkt. 1-6 at 3)

Count 6 OLC, February 28, 2018: "records related to or about the activities, legislation, and certain persons in the 80th Congress which convened in 1947 and 1948" (Dkt. 1-3 at 3)

Count 7 Office of the President, March 6, 2018: "records related to or about the activities, legislation, and certain persons in the 80th Congress which convened in 1947 and 1948" (Dkt. 1-2 at 3)

Count 8 NCIS, December 10, 2018: "140 pages of documents [which] were turned over to Federal civilian law enforcement," including "any Search Warrant, Subpoena, or letter of request for these 140 pages of documents (in the form of emails) from the USS Gettysburg CG-64" and "any emails or communications between United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Naval Criminal Investigative Services" (Dkt. 1-9 at 3)

None of the Defendants produced records in response to Matthews' FOIA requests before he filed his Complaint on April 8, 2020. Dkt. 1 at 22-23. Matthews alleges that his "request for information has been obstructed, denied, or ignored" by the agencies, in violation 5 U.S.C. § 552. Dkt. 1 at 4. He seeks injunctive relief ordering Defendants to provide the requested records. Id. at 22-23. After he filed his Complaint, OLC, EOUSA, and BOP produced documents in response to the requests. Dkt. 25; Dkt. 43-1; Dkt. 43-2 ¶¶ 8, 13, 18. Matthews has received no documents from NCIS or the Office of the President. Dkt. 1-2; Dkt. 43-12.

Defendants move to dismiss Matthews' claims against EOUSA, OLC, BOP, and the Office of the President for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Defendants also seek summary judgment on Matthews' claim against NCIS. Matthews cross-moves for summary judgment on all claims.

II. Legal Standards

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The party claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction must show that the court indeed has that jurisdiction. Willoughby v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 730 F.3d 476, 479 (5th Cir. 2013). A federal court properly dismisses a case or claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when it lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the claims. Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court may consider (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint, undisputed facts, and the court's resolution of disputed facts. Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559, 566 (5th Cir. 2010). The trial court is "free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself" that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. MDPhysicians & Assocs., Inc. v. State Bd. of Ins., 957 F.2d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)).

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is limited to ongoing "cases" or "controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2.

Article III denies federal courts the power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them, and confines them to resolving real and substantial controversies admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The case or controversy requirement "subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. It is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed; the parties must continue to have a personal stake in the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit." Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (cleaned up); see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.167, 189 (2000) ("The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness)."). A case becomes moot and there is no longer a case or controversy "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Chafin, 568 U.S. at 172.

B. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment shall be rendered when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials, and any affidavits on file show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2007). A dispute regarding a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view all inferences drawn from the factual record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Washburn, 504 F.3d at 508. A court "may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence" in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254-55.

Once the moving party has made an initial showing that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and thus are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007). Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation also are not competent summary judgment evidence. Id. The partyopposing summary judgment is...