Watters v. Department of Justice ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 11, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JOHN THOMAS WATTERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 13-5121
(D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00270-GKF-PJC)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; (N.D. Okla.)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -
CRIMINAL DIVISION; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY; DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY; BUREAU OF
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS,
EXPLOSIVES; INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
John Thomas Watters brought this action under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act (PA), 5 U.S.C. § 552a, seeking
records that might exonerate him from his federal drug-related convictions. The
district court granted summary judgment to Defendants the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the Executive Office of the United States Attorney (EOUSA),
the Department of Justice-Criminal Division (DOJ), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Mr. Watters appeals, and exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
Mr. Watters is presently in federal custody serving a 240 month sentence for
crimes committed while participating in a marijuana grow operation. We affirmed
his convictions on direct appeal, United States v. Watters, 237 F. App’x 376
(10th Cir. 2007), and after the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we
denied a certificate of appealability, United States v. Watters, 363 F. App’x 653
(10th Cir. 2010).
During the course of his post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Watters submitted
identical FOIA requests to the FBI, the EOUSA, and the DOJ, seeking any material
concerning him from 2002 through 2007. He also requested information concerning
persons who he claims were involved in his criminal activities, namely Michelle
Quisenberry, Kenneth Jones, and Jerry Harris. After much back and forth, including
various inter-agency referrals, Defendants searched their respective databases and
-2-
processed hundreds of pages of material. Much of that material was released to
Mr. Watters in full or redacted form, but much of it was not. Defendants claimed the
redacted and undisclosed information was protected under certain FOIA exemptions.
Mr. Watters initiated this action to compel full disclosure. Claiming that
Defendants were “in direct violation of the [FOIA],” he sought an “Order requiring
prompt disclosure and release of . . . all . . . documents abusively withheld from
[him].” R., Vol. I at 136. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that
they had performed adequate searches and that all information withheld from
Mr. Watters was exempt from disclosure under relevant provisions of the FOIA.
They also argued that Mr. Watters had no cognizable claim against the EOUSA
because he failed to pay his processing fees and did not perfect an administrative
appeal. To support their motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed
declarations detailing how the FOIA requests were processed and which exemptions
they invoked to justify withholding the information.
Based on Defendants’ declarations, the district court determined that
Defendants had conducted adequate searches and that any information not released to
Mr. Watters was lawfully withheld under specific FOIA exemptions. The court also
concluded that Mr. Watters had no cognizable claim against the EOUSA because he
neither paid his required processing fee nor perfected an administrative appeal. Thus,
the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mr. Watters now
challenges the district court’s decision.
-3-
II
A. Legal Standards
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same legal standard used by the district court, drawing all reasonable inferences
in favor of the nonmoving party—in this case, in favor of [Mr. Watters].” Hull v.
Internal Revenue Serv., 656 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2011). The “FOIA provides
the public a right of access, enforceable in court, to federal agency records, subject to
nine specific exemptions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It is the agency’s
burden to show that undisclosed information is protected by a particular exemption.
Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1226 (10th Cir. 2007). We construe
the FOIA broadly in favor of disclosure and “narrowly circumscribe[]” its
exemptions. Id. “‘[A]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided
to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are
exempt.’” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)).1
1
Although Mr. Watters initiated this action under both the FOIA and the
Privacy Act, the district court evaluated the propriety of the withheld information
only under the FOIA. Mr. Watters does not challenge that approach on appeal, nor
does he contest any Privacy Act exemption. Indeed, his opening brief makes only
isolated references to the Privacy Act. See Aplt. Br. at 3, 5, 16, 26. We recognize
that Mr. Watters is a pro se litigant and that his pleadings are entitled to a liberal
construction. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Nevertheless, he is still obligated to comply with the same procedural rules that
govern other litigants. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005). Because Mr. Watters has failed to adequately develop any
issue arising under the Privacy Act, we decline to consider that theory. See Bronson
v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e routinely have declined to
(continued)
-4-
“To satisfy its burden of proof under [the] FOIA, an agency typically submits
affidavits. These:
[a]ffidavits must show, with reasonable specificity, why the documents
fall within the exemption. The affidavits will not suffice if the agency’s
claims are conclusory, merely reciting statutory standards, or if they are
too vague or sweeping. If the affidavits provide specific information
sufficient to place the documents within the exemption category, if the
information is not contradicted in the record, and if there is no evidence
in the record of agency bad faith, then summary judgment is appropriate
without in camera review of the documents.
Hull, 656 F.3d at 1177-78 (quoting Quinon v. FBI, 86 F.3d 1222, 1227 (D.C. Cir.
1996)); see also Anderson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 907 F.2d 936, 942
(10th Cir. 1990) (explaining that court may rely on detailed affidavits to resolve
FOIA summary judgment motions).
B. Exhaustion
Before getting to the merits, we initially note, as a prudential matter, that
Mr. Watters did not exhaust his administrative remedies against the EOUSA.
See Hull, 656 F.3d at 1181-83 (explaining that exhaustion under the FOIA is a
prudential consideration rather than jurisdictional, but it nevertheless “remains a
hurdle that FOIA plaintiffs must generally clear in order to obtain relief”). First,
Mr. Watters did not pay his administrative processing fees to the EOUSA. When he
filed his request, the EOUSA notified him that by making it he was agreeing to pay
$25.00 in search fees and would be notified if his fees exceeded that amount. After
consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an
appellant’s opening brief.”).
-5-
locating many documents, the EOUSA alerted Mr. Watters that his estimated search
fees would be $140.00, which he also agreed to pay. But after the EOUSA calculated
a final fee of $112.00 and released the information to Mr. Watters, he refused to pay.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Mr. Watters failed to perfect a proper
administrative appeal. After the EOUSA processed Mr. Watters’ request, it informed
him that he could file an appeal with the Office of Information Policy (OIP). The
EOUSA instructed him how to file his appeal and alerted him that it must be received
by OIP within sixty days. Rather than heed those instructions, however, Mr. Watters
requested an appeal with the EOUSA. Although no appeal was filed, he amended his
complaint and added allegations against the EOUSA. But this deprived OIP of an
opportunity to affirm the EOUSA’s decision, correct any errors, and add to the record
upon which Mr. Watters now asks us to review the propriety of the EOUSA’s
decision. See Hull, 656 F.3d at 1183 (holding that review may not be barred where
the purposes of exhaustion—“namely, preventing premature interference with agency
processes, affording the parties and the courts the benefit of the agency’s experience
and expertise, or compiling a record which is adequate for judicial review—have all
been served” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted)). Under these
circumstances, we decline to review any claim against the EOUSA.
C. Adequacy of Searches
As for the other Defendants, they must show that their “search for responsive
documents was adequate, which is determined under a standard of reasonableness,
-6-
and is dependent upon the circumstances of the case.” Trentadue v. FBI, 572 F.3d
794, 797 (10th Cir. 2009) (brackets, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude the searches conducted here were adequate and reasonably calculated to
uncover all relevant documents.
According to a declaration signed by Dennis J. Argall, the Assistant Section
Chief in the FBI’s Records Management Division, the FBI assigned Mr. Watters’
request “FOIPA Number 1136453-000.” R., Vol. I at 205. The FBI advised
Mr. Watters that it was searching the indices of its Central Records System, which
Mr. Argall described in detail over more than three pages of his declaration. See id.
at 207-210. Mr. Argall also described with precision the parameters of the searches
conducted. He explained that the searches yielded responsive information located in
an investigative file that the FBI initially deemed exempt from disclosure under
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) (exempting law enforcement records that “could reasonably
be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings”). The FBI later determined
that exemption “went away” after Mr. Watters initiated this litigation. Id. at 206.
Hence, the FBI processed 605 pages and released those documents to Mr. Watters,
subject to various exemptions that were itemized in a Vaughn index. See Vaughn v.
Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
John E. Cunningham, III, an attorney for the DOJ, stated that Mr. Watters’
FOIA request was initially closed because he failed to provide information needed to
process his request. When he submitted that information, the DOJ opened a new file,
-7-
“CRM-20100074P.” Id. at 240. The DOJ then searched its central index of records,
which Mr. Cunningham indicated was “the most comprehensive system maintained
by the Criminal Division.” Id. A search using variations of Mr. Watters’ name
turned up no responsive information, but the DOJ notified Mr. Watters that his
records may be maintained by the EOUSA. Later, upon realizing that other sections
of the Criminal Division had not been searched, the DOJ conducted expedited
searches of its Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section, Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force, Office of Enforcement Operations FOIA/PA Unit, and
Electronic Surveillance Unit, all of which yielded no records (other than Mr. Watters’
FOIA requests). Mr. Cunningham deduced this was because Mr. Watters was
prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, not the DOJ.
Peter J. Chisholm, Acting Chief of the Disclosure Division for the ATF,
submitted a declaration attesting that the ATF had received a referral of
16 documents from the FBI consisting of one page each. All of these documents
were withheld under exemption (b)(3) of the FOIA, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)
(exempting certain information protected from disclosure by statute), because the
documents “consisted of [firearms] trace data,” R., Vol. I at 292. Mr. Chisholm
acknowledged that the ATF could not locate any records relating to the FBI’s original
referral. However, Mr. Chisholm explained that when Mr. Watters filed his
complaint, the ATF searched its FOIA database and confirmed that it had received
and denied the referral. Nevertheless, because those documents had been lost, the
-8-
ATF undertook a thorough examination of its office, searching all of its 2011 files
and the work spaces of its Disclosure Specialists, a paralegal, and a retired team
leader. Because the original referral documents were not found, the ATF requested
copies from the FBI and verified that all 16 documents were exempt. The ATF also
searched its communications system database and case management system but found
no responsive information. The ATF declined to search for or release any third-party
records concerning Ms. Quisenberry, Mr. Harris, or Mr. Jones, citing Exemption
7(C). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (exempting law enforcement records that “could
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”).
As for the IRS, Carlton King, an attorney in the IRS’s Office of the Chief
Counsel, submitted a declaration stating that the IRS had received a 58-page referral
from the EOUSA and a 12-page referral from the FBI. The IRS eventually released
all of these materials to Mr. Watters, and he did not independently request any other
information. Consequently, no further search was conducted.
We conclude, based on the forgoing declarations, that Defendants satisfied
their burden to conduct reasonably adequate searches.
D. Exemptions
This brings us to the exemptions challenged by Mr. Watters. He first seems to
contest the withholding of information under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 502(b)(6), (b)(7)(C). Exemption 6 allows an agency to withhold
“personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would
-9-
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id., § 502(b)(6).
Exemption 7(C) allows an agency to withhold “records or information compiled for
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law
enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 502(b)(7)(C).2 Both of these
exemptions protect third-party privacy interests and both require that we balance the
public interest in disclosure against the privacy interest at stake. See Trentadue,
501 F.3d at 1232-36.
Here, the FBI and the ATF invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold the
names and identifying information of many individuals, including FBI special agents,
an assistant U.S. Attorney, a U.S. Marshal Service employee, a Federal Correctional
Institution employee, an investigator for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s
Office, third-parties of investigative interest, state and local law enforcement
employees, and third-parties who provided information to the FBI or were merely
mentioned during the course of Mr. Watters’ investigation. Notwithstanding the
compelling privacy interests of these individuals, Mr. Watters seems to contend that
the public interest weighs in favor of disclosure so that he can obtain what he
believes to be exculpatory information and prove his innocence. He contends the
2
We have adopted a per se rule that all records and information compiled by a
law enforcement agency are “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” Jordan v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 668 F.3d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
- 10 -
public has an interest in knowing about the government’s wrongdoing in procuring
Ms. Quisenberry’s testimony and failing to investigate Mr. Jones and Mr. Harris. We
perceive at least three problems with this argument.
First, as the district court observed, Mr. Watters has provided no evidence of
government wrongdoing. See Martin v. Dep’t of Justice, 488 F.3d 446, 458
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (“‘If the public interest is government wrongdoing, then the
requester must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person
that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.’” (quoting Boyd v.
Dep’t of Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 387 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). Instead, Mr. Watters merely
makes “unsubstantiated assertions of government wrongdoing,” which is insufficient
to establish a public interest weighing in favor of disclosure. Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). Second, Mr. Watters fails to establish a public interest sufficient to
overcome the significant privacy interest that third-parties have in preventing
disclosure of investigative material. See Nation Magazine v. United States Customs
Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 894 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (holding that “an obvious privacy interest
. . . extends to third parties who may be mentioned in investigatory files, as well as to
witnesses and informants who have provided information during the course of an
investigation”). And third, Mr. Watters offers nothing to suggest that disclosure
would contribute to the public’s understanding of Defendants’ activities; instead, he
asserts his own personal interest in securing his release. See Trentadue, 501 F.3d at
1233 (“We must assess the extent to which disclosure would contribute to the public
- 11 -
understanding of the operations or activities of the government, not the interests of
the requesting party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Under these
circumstances, Defendants properly withheld the names and identifying information
of law enforcement officers and other third parties under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Turning to Exemption 7(A), it allows an agency to withhold “records or
information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the
production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 502(b)(7)(A). The
FBI withheld eight pages under Exemption 7(A), claiming the documents “contain
information on a third party of interest who is currently in fugitive status.” R., Vol. I
at 230. The FBI averred that disclosing this information could compromise an open
investigation, and thus it invoked Exemption 7(A) to prevent disclosure. On appeal,
Mr. Watters acknowledges that a third party is an active fugitive, though he questions
whether there is an ongoing effort to capture the fugitive. Mr. Watters contends that
Exemption “7(A) is not available where agents, as in this case[,] simply go through
the motions.” Aplt. Br. at 38. This is insufficient to establish that the undisclosed
material was improperly withheld under Exemption 7(A).
Lastly, Exemption 7(D) allows an agency to withhold information prepared for
law enforcement purposes that “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity
of a confidential source, . . . and, in the case of a record or information compiled by
criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation . . .,
- 12 -
information furnished by a confidential source.” 5 U.S.C. § 502(b)(7)(D). The FBI
invoked this exemption to “withhold information provided by commercial/private
companies and other non-government entities under an expressed assurance of
confidentiality.” R., Vol. I at 231. Mr. Watters does not argue that the exemption
was inapplicable for this purpose. Instead, he contends that Exemption 7(D) is not
available where the “names [of the confidential sources] (Jones, Quisenberry, Harris)
are well known.” Aplt. Br. at 39. But at least one court has held that “the protections
of 7(D) apply even if a confidential source is later revealed.” Rimmer v. Holder,
700 F.3d 246, 253 n.4 (6th Cir. 2012). Mr. Watters retorts that he only wants to
know “what interaction (if any) these criminals had with Government agents,” Aplt.
Br. at 39, but this does not address the propriety of the exemption for the purposes
claimed here. Thus, the district court properly granted Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.3
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Chief Judge
3
To the extent Mr. Watters raises any segregability issue, we have reviewed the
record and agree with the district court’s conclusion that Defendants have
“adequately specif[ied] ‘which portions of the document[s] are disclosable and which
are allegedly exempt.’” R., Vol. I at 387 (quoting Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 827).
- 13 -