Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

975 F.Supp.2d 20

Jeremy Pinson, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action Nos.: 12–1872 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

September 30, 2013

Jeremy Pinson, Florence, CO, pro se.

Michael Stine, Florence, CO, pro se.

Chris Dennison, Florence, CO, pro se.

Greg Murray, Florence, CO, pro se.

John H. Spittell, Theresa Ekeoma Dike, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Re Document Nos.: 2, 5–13, 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

Resolving All Pending Motions

I. INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. On November 15, 2012, the pro se Plaintiff, Mr. Jeremy Pinson, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and its components, failed to respond to the Plaintiff's requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, submitted between 2007 and 2012. Since November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff has amended his complaint twice and filed seven motions (“Plaintiff's Motions”).¹ On February 27, 2012, the Defendantsmoved to strike the Plaintiff's second amended complaint, and on March 21, 2013, the Defendants filed a response to all of the Plaintiff's Motions. This Court responds to the Plaintiff's Motions and the Defendants' responses collectively in this Opinion.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 12(b)(6), 12(e) and FOIA and Privacy Act filing requirements, the Plaintiff's complaints lack sufficient background to determine the grounds for which relief is sought. Accordingly, this Court sua sponte orders the Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of his claims and grants the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Moreover, after examining the Plaintiff's subsequent motions and the Defendants' responses, this Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Dennison, denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder of Plaintiff Stine, denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Rule 11 Sanctions, and denies as premature the Plaintiff's Motion for a Vaughn Index. Additionally, this Court grants the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' Motions to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, but denies the Defendants' request for relief of any obligation to respond to any further filings by the Plaintiff absent a court order. This Court will address the Plaintiff and the Defendants' motions together in the order in which they were filed.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff, Mr. Jeremy Pinson, incarcerated at a maximum security facility in Florence, Colorado, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants DOJ and fifteen of its components improperly responded to 211 of the Plaintiff's FOIA and Privacy Act requests filed between 2007 and 2012. See Compl. ¶¶ 5–25, ECF No. 1. The Plaintiff's complaint listed the names of the components involved, the number of requests submitted to each component, and the agency's action for each request. See id. The Plaintiff requested an injunction compelling production of the information sought and all damages available under 5 U.S.C. § 552. See id. ¶¶ 26–27. The Plaintiff neither included any details about the information he requested from the Defendants nor any responses received from the Defendants about denials of such information.

Since his initial complaint, the Plaintiff has amended his complaint twice and has filed seven motions. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint adding two plaintiffs, Christopher Dennison and Greg Murray, to this action. See 1st Am. Compl., ECF No. 2. On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff moved to dismiss Plaintiff Dennison. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7. On the same day, the Plaintiff moved to join Mikeal Stine as a plaintiff and moved to dismiss Plaintiff Murray.²See Mot. Joinder, ECF No. 6.

Additionally, on the same day, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint adding three Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees as defendants in this action. See 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 5. In his second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment rights. See id. ¶ 4. The Plaintiff repeated his Privacy Act claims against Defendants alleging that they refused to delete false information from the Plaintiff's file. See id. ¶¶ 25–27. The Plaintiff also claimed that the Defendants harassed the Plaintiff by seizing his legal documents and filing false disciplinary reports against him. See id. ¶ 35.

On February 27, 2013, the Defendants moved to strike the Plaintiff's second amended complaint and to deny the Plaintiff's motion for joinder (“Motion to Strike”). See Defs.' Mot. Strike, ECF No. 8. In their motion, the Defendants first argue that the Plaintiff failed to seek leave of court before filing his second amended complaint. See id. at 4. Second, the Defendants argue that the complaint includes an invalid signature that demonstrates bad faith. See id. at 5. Third, the Defendants argue that the second amended complaint is futile because (1) it fails to state a claim for relief against the individual defendants, (2) it would not survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), (3) it does not invoke or exhaust administrative remedies, and (4) it fails to state a valid claim for relief under the Privacy Act. See id. at 5–16. Finally, the Defendants argue that this Court should deny the Plaintiff's request for joinder because the Plaintiff fails to meet the conditions for a permissible joinder. See id. at 17.

On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff moved to strike his second amended complaint and requested leave to amend his complaint to add parties (“Motion for Leave”). See Mot. Leave, ECF No. 10. The Plaintiff moved to add four new plaintiffs who allegedly shared similar causes of action. See id. at 1. Additionally, the Plaintiff acknowledged that he filed his second amended complaint without seeking leave from this Court and requested this Court grant him leave to “file a more factually accurate complaint.” See id. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a “Motion for a Preliminary Injunction” to enjoin the Defendants from alleged retaliation against the Plaintiff. See Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 12. In his Motion, the Plaintiff claims that three BOP employees and the Assistant Warden of the prison threatened, assaulted, confiscated documents, and withheld meals from the Plaintiff and his witnesses. See id. at 2–3; Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 2–5, ECF No. 12–1.

On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing and seeking sanctions (“Motion for Hearing”) against Defense Counsel for alleged factual misrepresentations included in the Defendants' Motion to Strike filed on February 27, 2013. See Mot. for Hr'g, ECF No. 13. On the same day, the Plaintiff responded to the Defendants' Motion to Strike. In the Plaintiff's response, he again requested that this Court strike his second amended complaint and asked for leave to file a more detailed complaint. See Pl.'s Resp. 1–2, ECF No. 14. Additionally, on the same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a Vaughn index requesting that this Court require the Defendants to provide a detailed justification for the documents not released and exempted from production pursuant to the Plaintiff's FOIA requests. See Vaughn Mot. 1, ECF No. 15.

On March 21, 2013, the Defendants filed a response ³ opposing the Plaintiff's five motions filed between March 11, 2013 and March 15, 2013 (“Defendants' Opposition”). First, the Defendants argue that this Court should deny the Plaintiff's request to re-amend his complaint because further amendments to the complaint would be “futile.” See Defs.' Opp'n 5–7, ECF No. 16. Second, the Defendants insist that this Court dismiss all of the Plaintiff's motions ⁴ for failure to state valid claims for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See id. 8–11. Finally, the Defendants request that this Court relieve the Defendants of any obligation to respond to any further filings by the Plaintiff absent a court order. See id. 10.

III. COMPLAINT AND JOINDER

A. Legal Standards

1. Amended Pleadings

a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d), 12(b)(6), and 12(e)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” with the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Even though a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” a complaint must include “more than labels and conclusions” that reveal the grounds that may entitle the complainant for relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A plaintiff's complaint must include more than inferences or “legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994). Accordingly, a complaint that lacks “further factual enhancement” or includes bald allegations may not meet Rule 8 pleading requirements and may not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

Additionally, under Rule 12(e), a court can order sua sponte a more definite statement of a plaintiff's claims when the complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that [a] party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Courts have found that “mere allegations” with unclear statements devoid of “factual details” warrant a court order for a more definite statement. See, e.g., Fraternal Order of Police Library of Cong. Labor Comm. v. Library of Cong., 692 F.Supp.2d 9, 20 (D.D.C.2010); Saad v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs. Inc., 456 F.Supp. 33, 36 (D.D.C.1978).

b. Federal Rule...