James v. U.S. Secret Service ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
:
DONVILLE JAMES, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
: Civil Action No. 06-1951 (GK)
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and :
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, :
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, :
:
Defendants. :
___________________________________:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Donville James, proceeding pro se, brought this
action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5
U.S.C. § 552, against Defendants United States Secret Service,
Department of Homeland Security (“Secret Service”) and Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice (“FBI”). On July 23,
2007, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
James v. United States Secret Serv., No. 06-cv-1951, 2007 WL
2111034 (D.D.C. July 23, 2007). This matter is presently before the
Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive
Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) [Dkt. No. 16]. Upon
consideration of the Motion, Opposition, and Reply, and the entire
record herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.
I. Background
On November 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this
Court challenging Defendants’ disposition of his September 15, 2005
FOIA requests. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on
the grounds that James failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies for the FBI FOIA requests, and that the Secret Service
conducted a proper search and justifiably withheld the records
requested by James under FOIA’s statutory exemptions.
James now moves for relief from the Order granting summary
judgment in order to obtain access to the records withheld by the
Secret Service under FOIA Exemption 7(A), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).
Specifically, James seeks the contents of a conversation recorded
on March 25, 2002 and allegedly maintained in the Secret Service’s
Chicago Field Office under investigative file number 1544, serial
number 201-2002-CE-000442. Mot. at 3-7.
Exemption 7(A) shields from disclosure “records or information
compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that
the production of such records could ... interfere with enforcement
proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) (2009). The Secret Service
invoked Exemption 7(A) for the materials in dispute because they
were related to the agency’s criminal investigation of James, which
remained open until James’ conviction and the conclusion of all
appeals. James’ 1992 conviction was on appeal before the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit throughout the litigation in this
-2-
Court. Concluding that James’ conviction was therefore not yet
final, the Court found on summary judgment that the records were
justifiably withheld under Exemption 7(A). James, 2007 WL 2111034,
at *4-5.
On June 4, 2007, the Seventh Circuit affirmed James’
conviction. United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2007).
In April of 2009, James filed a new FOIA request with the Secret
Service for the materials exempted under 7(A). The Department of
Homeland Security responded by disclosing materials on August 19,
2009, which James alleges were unresponsive. James timely appealed
the agency’s response pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(b)(A)(ii), and
the agency responded to his appeal by letter dated November 20,
2009. According to its letter, the agency had destroyed the
materials requested on November 26, 2007. James contends that the
destruction of the recorded conversations was in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a), which provides that recordings of the contents
of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication “shall
not be destroyed except upon an order of the issuing or denying
judge and in any event shall be kept for ten years.”
In light of these changed circumstances, James moves under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) for relief from the July 23, 2007 Order
granting summary judgment for Defendants. In addition, James seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and
-3-
an order appointing special counsel to investigate Defendants’
alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a).
II. Standard of Review
Rule 60(b) provides that, “[o]n motion and just terms, the
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (2009). The
Rule establishes six reasons which may justify relief from a final
judgment. Rule 60(b)(6), upon which Plaintiff relies, is a
catch-all provision providing that a motion for modification may be
made for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Id.
The Supreme Court has held that only exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances can justify relief under this
subsection of Rule 60. Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193,
199-202, 71 S. Ct. 209, 95 L. Ed. 207 (1950). Our Court of Appeals
has further stated that the Rule“should be only sparingly used.”
Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133, 1140 (D.C.
Cir. 1988) (quoting Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636
F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
III. Analysis
Defendants argue that James has failed to plead or prove the
extraordinary circumstances required to justify relief under Rule
60(b)(6). Defendants contend that James seeks to improperly
challenge the disposition of his April 15, 2009 FOIA request by
-4-
reopening his action challenging the disposition of his September
15, 2005 requests, instead of filing a new complaint.
Defendants are correct. Reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) is
proper “[w]hen a party timely presents a previously undisclosed
fact so central to the litigation that it shows the initial
judgment to have been manifestly unjust.” Good Luck Nursing Home,
636 F.2d at 577. Here, however, James fails to present any new
facts or arguments showing that the Court’s July 23, 2007 judgment
upholding Defendants’ disposition of his September 15, 2005 FOIA
requests was unjust.1 Instead, he now argues that the agency
wrongfully denied his April 15, 2009 FOIA request, which was, of
course, not challenged in the original Complaint.
1
The case that Plaintiff principally relies upon to
support his argument that the finalization of his conviction is an
“extraordinary circumstance” justifying relief is unpersuasive. In
Amesco Exports v. Assoc. Aircraft Mfg. & Sales, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1013
(C.D. Cal. 1997), the court granted summary judgment to the
defendants on a breach of contract claim because the plaintiffs
lacked corporate status, and thus lacked capacity to sue. At the
time of summary judgment, unbeknownst to the court, plaintiffs were
engaged in efforts to revive their corporate status, which were
ultimately successful. Plaintiffs moved under Rule 60(b) based upon
their revived status, and the court concluded that the “new”
evidence justified relief. However, there is one critical
distinction between Amesco and the present case: in Amesco, the
court’s conclusion was based on the undisputed premise that “the
effect of the revivor is to retroactively validate the complaint.”
Id. at 1015. In contrast, the changed circumstances surrounding the
finality of James’ conviction do not retroactively invalidate the
Secret Service’s withholding under Exemption 7(A).
-5-
The proper vehicle for James’ latest challenge is a new
complaint. Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
failed to present the kind of extraordinary circumstances required
under Rule 60(b)(6), and his Motion is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(6) is denied. An Order will accompany this Memorandum
Opinion.
/s/
July 29, 2010 Gladys Kessler
United States District Judge
Copies via ECF to all counsel of record
-6-