Michael Taylor v. National Security Agency , 618 F. App'x 478 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 14-15380   Date Filed: 06/29/2015   Page: 1 of 11
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-15380
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cv-00045-DHB-BKE
    MICHAEL TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (June 29, 2015)
    Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 14-15380        Date Filed: 06/29/2015   Page: 2 of 11
    Michael Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeals the district judge’s granting
    summary judgment to the National Security Agency (“NSA”) in his action brought
    under the Freedom of Information Act, 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
     (“FOIA”), and the Privacy
    Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (“Privacy Act”). He also appeals denial of his
    motions for temporary restraining orders. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
    I.      BACKGROUND
    A.    Taylor’s Document Requests to the NSA
    Under FOIA and the Privacy Act, Taylor wrote a letter to the NSA and
    requested any and all records about him maintained by the NSA. He also
    requested (1) applications for orders authorizing or approving interception of his
    communications and documents related to those applications, (2) applications for
    orders authorizing the NSA to read his mind, (3) orders authorizing the NSA to
    intercept his communications or thoughts, and documents related to such orders,
    and (4) documents identifying all other agencies that have requested surveillance
    of him.
    The NSA issued a letter denying his request and explained a search of its
    most comprehensive filing systems, including information concerning applicants,
    personnel, security, medical, and training records, showed Taylor never had been
    affiliated with the NSA, which had no records relating to him. Regarding Taylor’s
    FOIA request, the NSA responded it could neither confirm nor deny the existence
    2
    Case: 14-15380       Date Filed: 06/29/2015      Page: 3 of 11
    of intelligence records responsive to his request, because that information was
    classified by executive order and exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. 1
    Taylor administratively appealed the NSA’s denial; the NSA affirmed the
    denial of his request. In the letter affirming the denial, the NSA specifically
    affirmed the Glomar response with reference to Taylor’s request for intelligence
    documents.
    B.     District Court Proceedings
    In his amended complaint in federal district court, Taylor sought relief,
    based on denial of his FOIA and Privacy Act requests by the NSA, and moved the
    district judge to compel the NSA to produce non-secret portions of the requested
    documents. Taylor also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, in which
    he claimed unidentified NSA personnel had committed various hostile and
    lascivious acts against him since 2003. Specifically, he maintained NSA personnel
    had threatened to kill him, insulted him, used racial epithets toward him, and
    engaged in various nonconsensual sex acts with him via virtual reality. He
    requested a temporary restraining order, enjoining the NSA and its personnel from
    having further contact with him or engaging in the conduct he had described in his
    motion. The district judge denied Taylor’s motion for a temporary restraining
    1
    A response that neither confirms nor denies the existence of documents sought in a
    FOIA request is known as a “Glomar response.” Office of Capital Collateral Counsel, N. Region
    of Fla. ex rel. Mordenti v. Dep’t of Justice, 
    331 F.3d 799
    , 801 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). “The term
    has its origin in a case involving a FOIA request for information on the GLOMAR EXPLORER
    submarine-retrieval ship.” 
    Id.
     (citing Phillippi v. CIA, 
    546 F.2d 1009
     (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
    3
    Case: 14-15380     Date Filed: 06/29/2015   Page: 4 of 11
    order and noted his allegations “reek[ed] of implausibility,” and he had failed to
    show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in his underlying action. R.
    at 195.
    The NSA moved for summary judgment. In support of its motion, the NSA
    attached a declaration by David Sherman, its Associate Director of Policy and
    Records. Sherman stated the NSA had conducted reasonable searches to locate
    records in its various Privacy Act records systems but had found nothing relating to
    Taylor. Concerning Taylor’s FOIA request, Sherman explained public disclosure
    of the NSA’s capability to collect specific communications or the substance of any
    specific communications could gravely threaten national security. The district
    judge granted summary judgment to the NSA regarding Taylor’s FOIA claims.
    The judge denied summary judgment to the NSA on the Privacy Act claims but
    found the NSA’s conclusory assertions concerning its records search and Taylor’s
    lack of affiliation with the NSA to be insufficient.
    Taylor then filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order and
    reasserted many of the allegations from his first motion. He added the NSA had
    the capability to orchestrate his dreams and had caused him to dream he was
    sexually assaulted. The district judge again denied Taylor’s motion for a
    temporary restraining order and reiterated his allegations were implausible.
    4
    Case: 14-15380        Date Filed: 06/29/2015        Page: 5 of 11
    Meanwhile, the NSA again moved for summary judgment on Taylor’s
    Privacy Act claim. With a second declaration from Sherman, it explained the
    methods and databases used to investigate Taylor’s Privacy Act request. Sherman
    also stated the NSA’s Glomar response was proper because confirming or denying
    the existence of responsive intelligence information would reveal properly
    classified information and potentially threaten national security.
    The district judge granted summary judgment to the NSA for Taylor’s
    Privacy Act claim and explained Sherman’s declaration (1) had provided
    reasonably specific information concerning the NSA’s records search for
    nonintelligence materials relating to Taylor, (2) was uncontroverted, and
    (3) showed the exemption under § 552a(k)(1)2 to disclosure applied to Taylor’s
    Privacy Act request for any intelligence documents. After the district judge issued
    summary judgment to the NSA, Taylor timely filed his notice of appeal.
    II.     DISCUSSION
    A.     Glomar Response
    On appeal, Taylor argues the NSA may not use § 552a(k)(1) of the Privacy
    Act to justify issuing a Glomar response and refusing to disclose non-secret
    portions of classified documents. We review de novo a district judge’s granting
    2
    Section 552a(k)(1) of the Privacy Act incorporates § 552(b)(1) (“Exemption 1”) from
    the FOIA, which exempts from disclosure documents, where (1) an executive order establishes
    criteria for keeping them secret, and (2) they are properly so classified pursuant to that order. 5
    U.S.C. §§ 552a(k)(1), 552(b)(1).
    5
    Case: 14-15380     Date Filed: 06/29/2015    Page: 6 of 11
    summary judgment. Times Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 
    236 F.3d 1286
    ,
    1288 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is appropriate, where the movant
    shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and it is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We construe pro se briefs
    liberally, but pro se litigants nonetheless must conform to procedural rules. See
    Albra v. Advan, Inc., 
    490 F.3d 826
    , 829 (11th Cir. 2007). A pro se litigant
    abandons arguments he does not discuss in his initial brief. Timson v. Sampson,
    
    518 F.3d 870
    , 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
    “The Privacy Act governs the government’s collection and dissemination of
    information and maintenance of its records and generally allows individuals to gain
    access to government records on them and to request correction of inaccurate
    records.” Perry v. Bureau of Prisons, 
    371 F.3d 1304
    , 1304 (11th Cir. 2004)
    (citation, internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The Privacy Act
    provides each agency that maintains a system of records shall
    upon request by any individual to gain access to his
    record or to any information pertaining to him which is
    contained in the system, permit him and upon his request,
    a person of his own choosing to accompany him, to
    review the record and have a copy made of all or any
    portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him.
    5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1). The FOIA, which requires the government to disclose
    documents under certain circumstances, contains nine exemptions from disclosure.
    See 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    (a)-(b); see also CIA v. Sims, 
    471 U.S. 159
    , 166-67, 
    105 S. Ct. 6
    Case: 14-15380     Date Filed: 06/29/2015    Page: 7 of 11
    1881, 1886 (1985). Generally, an agency may not rely on the FOIA disclosure
    exemptions “to withhold from an individual any record which is otherwise
    accessible to such individual under the provisions of [§ 552a].” 5 U.S.C.
    § 552a(t)(1). Nevertheless, the Privacy Act expressly incorporates Exemption 1 of
    the FOIA, under which an agency may withhold records “(A) specifically
    authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the
    interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) [which] are in fact properly
    classified pursuant to such Executive order.” Id. §§ 552a(k)(1), 552(b)(1).
    When a government agency issues a Glomar response, it must “‘provide a
    public affidavit explaining in as much detail as is possible the basis for its claim
    that it can be required neither to confirm nor deny the existence of the requested
    records.’” Ely v. FBI, 
    781 F.2d 1487
    , 1493 (11th Cir. 1986) (quoting Phillippi,
    
    546 F.2d at 1013
    ). Then, the government agency’s arguments are subject to
    “testing by [the requestor],” who may seek appropriate discovery if necessary to
    clarify the agency’s position. 
    Id.
     (quoting Phillippi v. CIA, 
    546 F.2d 1009
    , 1013
    (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
    As an initial matter, Taylor’s argument on appeal relates only to the district
    judge’s final summary judgment order, regarding the application of Exemption 1
    of the FOIA to Taylor’s Privacy Act claims, not the partial summary judgment
    order. Because Taylor does not (1) raise any argument the NSA improperly
    7
    Case: 14-15380      Date Filed: 06/29/2015     Page: 8 of 11
    invoked other FOIA exemptions, (2) reference the partial summary judgment
    order, or (3) provide meaningful argument concerning the district judge’s
    determination relative to his FOIA, as opposed to his Privacy Act request, he has
    abandoned those arguments. See Timson, 
    518 F.3d at 874
    . Regarding his Privacy
    Act request, Taylor does not contest the NSA’s response concerning its search of
    non-intelligence records relating to him. He also does not challenge the
    sufficiency of the NSA’s justification for invoking Exemption 1; instead, he
    challenges only whether Exemption 1 can serve as a means to issue a Glomar
    response to a Privacy Act request.
    Contrary to Taylor’s contention, neither §§ 552a(k)(1) nor 552(b)(1)
    suggests the disclosure of redacted documents is required where a government
    agency invokes Exemption 1, and neither provision suggests a Glomar response is
    improper, when Exemption 1 applies. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(k)(1), 552(b)(1). The
    District of Columbia Circuit has reasoned persuasively a government agency may
    issue a Glomar response under Exemption 1. See Larson v. Dep’t of State, 
    565 F.3d 857
    , 861 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (explaining Exemptions 1 and 33 of the FOIA
    “cover not only the content of protected government records but also the fact of
    their existence or nonexistence”). Notably, per Sherman’s declarations, the NSA
    complied with the case law and prescribed requirements for showing a Glomar
    3
    Under Exemption 3 of the FOIA, 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    (b)(3), information need not be
    disclosed if a statute exempts the information from disclosure.
    8
    Case: 14-15380     Date Filed: 06/29/2015   Page: 9 of 11
    response is warranted. See Ely, 
    781 F.2d at 1493
    . On the facts of this case, we
    conclude the NSA provided sufficient justification for issuing a Glomar response
    to Taylor’s Privacy Act request. Therefore, the district judge properly granted
    summary judgment to the NSA.
    B.    Temporary Restraining Orders
    Taylor argues the district judge erred in denying his motions for temporary
    restraining orders and asserts he suffered irreparable injury because of the NSA’s
    alleged misconduct. The NSA contends the district judge’s denials of Taylor’s
    motions for temporary restraining orders were non-final orders, over which we
    lack jurisdiction.
    We generally lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders denying
    temporary restraining orders. See Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 
    671 F.2d 426
    , 429
    (11th Cir. 1982) (“It is well established that as a general rule a temporary
    restraining order is not appealable.”). “TRO rulings, however, are subject to
    appeal as interlocutory injunction orders if the appellant can disprove the general
    presumption that no irreparable harm exists.” Ingram v. Ault, 
    50 F.3d 898
    ,
    899-900 (11th Cir. 1995). Where a federal government agency is party to a suit, a
    party may appeal the denial of specified interlocutory orders, including injunctions,
    within 60 days of the date on which the district judge issues his order denying the
    injunction. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); see also Pitney
    9
    Case: 14-15380    Date Filed: 06/29/2015    Page: 10 of 11
    Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 
    701 F.2d 1365
    , 1373 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Mestre could have
    appealed the injunction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (a)(1) within thirty days of the date
    it was first entered.”). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
    jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 
    551 U.S. 205
    , 214, 
    127 S. Ct. 2360
    ,
    2366 (2007).
    If Taylor could have appealed the denials of his motions, it would have been
    under the interlocutory appeal provision of § 1292(a)(1), but he failed to file a
    notice of appeal within 60 days of the orders he now attempts to appeal. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Because the timely filing of a
    notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in civil cases, and Taylor failed to
    file a notice of appeal from the denial of his motions for temporary restraining
    orders within the 60-day time period, we lack jurisdiction to entertain his appeal
    from the denials of his motions for temporary restraining orders. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Bowles, 
    551 U.S. at 214
    , 
    127 S. Ct. at 2366
    ; see also Pitney Bowes, Inc., 
    701 F.2d at 1373
    .
    III.   CONCLUSION
    We affirm the district judge’s granting summary judgment to the NSA on
    Taylor’s Privacy Act claim. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the district
    judge’s denial of Taylor’s motions for temporary restraining orders, we dismiss
    that portion of his appeal.
    10
    Case: 14-15380   Date Filed: 06/29/2015   Page: 11 of 11
    AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
    11