Muhammad v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys

453 F.Supp.3d 160

Mustafa MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff,

v.EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-3159 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 23, 2020

Mustafah Muhammad, Beaver, WV, pro se.

Kenneth A. Adebonojo, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge

Mustafa Muhammad, a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , filed this suit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its Executive Office of United States Attorneys (EOUSA) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. Muhammad requested all records about himself and his conviction for interstate transportation of a minor for prostitution purposes because he does not believe his victim was underage. As far as the documents that remain at issue go, EOUSA withheld grand jury materials and other documents in the government's case file that identify the full name and age of his victim. EOUSA filed a motion for summary judgment, declaration, and Vaughn Index, relying on FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7, and Muhammad cross-moved for summary judgment. Because EOUSA has adequately justified its withholding of these documents under Exemptions 3 and 5, which protect from disclosure grand jury materials and attorney work product, the Court need not address the validity of EOUSA's other claimed exemptions. The Court will thus grant summary judgment in EOUSA's favor and deny Muhammad's cross-motion.

I. Background

Muhammad filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2016, No. 2016-ICFO-35470, seeking "any and all information on" himself and his case after a jury found him guilty of transporting a minor across state lines for prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). United States v. Muhammad , No. 3:14-cr-55-REP (E.D. Va. June 24, 2014); ECF No. 16-3 at 34.¹ He sought "witness statements," "prosecution memoranda," "investigator's notes and reports," and other case-related files. Id. at 34–35. DHS's search for these materials produced 1,499 responsive pages. Id. at 39. It withheld portions of 1,331 pages and referred the rest to other agencies that produced them—including 40 pages to EOUSA—for decisions on disclosure. Id. EOUSA opened a separate FOIA case to review those documents, No. 2017-001944, and withheld them in full under Exemptions 3, 5, 7(C), and 7(D). Id. at 43–46. Muhammad appealed, and EOUSA affirmed on partly modified grounds, under Exemptions 3, 5, 7(C) and 7(F). Id. at 47–54.

Muhammad filed this suit against EOUSA and DOJ in 2018 "regarding Request No. 2017-001944," ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") at 1, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 16, 20–21. This time, EOUSA justified its withholdings under Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(F). ECF No. 16-3 at 11–32 ("Vaughn Index"). It also "conducted a detailed, line-by-line review to satisfy EOUSA's reasonable segregability obligations" and found the responsive material either exempt or "so intertwined with non-exempt information that segregation of the non-exempt information was not reasonably possible without revealing exempt information or leaving nothing but meaningless words or sentence fragments." ECF No. 16-3 at 1–10 ("Wilkinson Decl.") ¶ 31.

While Muhammad challenges EOUSA's withholding of all 40 pages of "information [from] his case file(s) and folders," he asserts that his "entire case" under FOIA is focused on the age and full name of "the victim in his criminal proceeding." ECF No. 20 at 6; Compl. at 5; see ECF No. 20 at 7–9, 11; ECF No. 20-1 at 2; ECF No. 25 at 1, 3. Muhammad alleges that "he is wrongfully incarcerated for transporting an individual whom the Government has continually called a ‘minor’ but at the time of the offense the person was over the age of eighteen." ECF No. 20 at 6; see Compl. at 4. With an eye toward exonerating himself, he "is requesting the 40 pages that have been withheld in full" because they allegedly include the above information, which is "exculpatory or impeaching" under Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) ; Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ; and Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). Compl. at 4. The 40 pages of withheld documents consist of (1) "grand jury subpoenas," (2) letters to "private citizen[s] directing" them "to produce certain records before a grand jury," and (3) three pages of "USAO-EDVA (Richmond) case tracking and notes." See Vaughn Index.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate "when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and drawing all reasonable inferences accordingly," Lopez v. Council on Am.-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. , 826 F.3d 492, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2016), "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). The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "Where the non[-]moving party is proceeding pro se , courts in this jurisdiction will construe [his] filings liberally." Cunningham v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 40 F. Supp. 3d 71, 82 (D.D.C. 2014).

"[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). "[A] district court reviewing a motion for summary judgment conducts a de novo review of the record, and the responding federal agency bears the burden of proving that it has complied with its obligations under ... FOIA." Roseberry-Andrews v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 299 F. Supp. 3d 9, 18 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting MacLeod v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , No. 15-cv-1792 (KBJ), 2017 WL 4220398, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2017) ). Indeed, even when the non-movant fails to file an opposition or present a coherent response to the movant's arguments, "a district court must always determine for itself whether the record and any undisputed material facts justify granting summary judgment." Cable News Network, Inc. v. FBI , 271 F. Supp. 3d 108, 111 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean , 843 F.3d 503, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ).

If the agency has invoked any of FOIA's exemptions, "[t]he burden is on the agency to justify withholding the requested documents." EPIC v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 777 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2015). "Summary judgment is warranted on the basis of agency affidavits when the affidavits describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith." Larson v. Dep't of State , 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Miller v. Casey , 730 F.2d 773, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ). The agency cannot rely on "conclusory and generalized allegations of exemptions." Morley v. CIA , 508 F.3d 1108, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Founding Church of Scientology of Wash., D.C., Inc. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency , 610 F.2d 824, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ). Finally, the Court has an affirmative duty to ensure that the agency provides to the requestor, "[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of the record," 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), "unless the exempt portions are ‘inextricably intertwined with exempt portions.’ " Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys , 310 F.3d 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep't of the Air Force , 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ). The agency is entitled to a presumption that it "complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material." Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv. , 494 F.3d 1106, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

III. Analysis

The Court is satisfied that EOUSA's withholding of the 40 pages at issue was proper under FOIA Exemptions 3 and 5 and that it has withheld no segregable material from those records.²

A. Exemption 3

Exemption 3 permits agencies to withhold records "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute if that statute ... requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Two withholding statutes are at issue here.

First, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) —a "statute" for purposes of Exemption 3 because Congress enacted it—prohibits disclosure, with limited exceptions inapplicable here, of "matters occurring before the grand jury." Fund for Constitutional Gov't v. Nat'l Archives & Records Serv. , 656 F.2d 856, 867–69 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Rule 6(e) protects against "not only the direct revelation of grand jury transcripts but also the disclosure of information which would reveal ‘the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of the jurors, and the like.’ " Id. at 869 (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., Inc. , 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ).

Rule 6(e) justifies EOUSA's withholding of the grand jury materials in question here from Muhammad. EOUSA withheld 28 pages of grand jury subpoenas that plainly fall under Rule 6(e)'s shield of "matters occurring before the grand jury." Fund for Const'l Gov't , 656 F.2d at 869 ; see Vaughn Index at 11, 13–18, 20–31. "All grand jury subpoenas ... fall within FOIA's third exemption." Lopez v. Dep't of Justice , 393 F.3d 1345, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2005). EOUSA also withheld nine "one-page letter[s]" from the United State's Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, which prosecuted Muhammad, to private citizens "directing th[em] to produce certain records before a grand jury" in...