Lee v. U.S. Attorney for Southern District of Florida , 376 F. App'x 882 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-14396 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 26, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-23057-CV-CMA
ALFRED WAYNE LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA, Jeffrey Sloman,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT/PRIVACY ACT
STAFF, Executive Office for United States
Attorneys in Washington, D.C.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 26, 2010)
Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is Alfred Wayne Lee’s second appeal in this case. In 2006, Lee, a pro
se federal prisoner, filed this civil action alleging claims under the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), and the Privacy Act (“PA”). Lee’s claims focused on
the defendants’ failure to respond to his FOIA and PA requests with documents
relating to his criminal prosecution. In 2007, the district court granted summary
judgment to the defendants, and, in 2008, this Court affirmed. See Lee v. U.S.
Att’y for the S. Dist. of Fla., 289 F. App’x. 377 (11th Cir. 2008). This Court
concluded that summary judgment was proper because “Lee failed to show a
genuine issue of material fact as to the reasonableness of the search for responsive
records or defendants’ good faith in conducting the search and providing
responsive records.” Id. at 381.
In 2009, Lee filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3)
and (b)(6) to reopen his case. Lee’s Rule 60(b) motion again requested the
documents related to his criminal prosecution and asserted that the defendants did
not comply in good faith with his FOIA and PA requests. The district court denied
Lee’s Rule 60(b) motion, noting that he had not made a sufficient showing that the
2
case should be reopened.1
Lee filed this appeal, making essentially the same argument he made in his
first appeal – that the evidence presented in the district court before his first appeal
shows that the defendants acted in bad faith in responding to his FOIA and PA
requests. We, like the district court before us, are bound by the law of the case
doctrine and may not revisit the issues Lee raised in his first appeal. See United
States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that under the law
of the case doctrine, both the appeals court and the district court are bound by the
findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the prior appeal unless certain
exceptions apply). Lee has not identified any applicable exception to the law of
the case. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lee’s Rule
60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED.
1
We generally review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Burke v.
Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001).
3