Jeter v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 841 F. Supp. 2d 214 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    PERCY L. JETER,
    Plaintiff,
    v.                                          Civil Action No. 11-996 (JEB)
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
    et al.,
    Defendants.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Plaintiff Percy L. Jeter, a federal prisoner and pro se litigant, brings this action against
    Defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Parole Commission pursuant to the Privacy Act,
    
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    . He claims that Defendants have refused to take measures to correct erroneous
    information about a prior conviction in his pre-sentence report, which error has adversely
    affected his chances for parole. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case on both procedural
    and substantive grounds, which Motion the Court now grants.
    I.      Background
    According to his Complaint, which the Court must presume true for purposes of this
    Motion, Plaintiff is an inmate currently serving a sentence at U.S.P.-McCreary in Pine Knot,
    Kentucky. See Compl. at 1. On March 18, 2009, he appeared before the Parole Commission for
    a hearing. See 
    id.
     During that hearing, information in Plaintiff’s pre-sentence report (PSR) that
    related to a prior felony conviction from 1978 was detrimentally used to calculate his parole
    eligibility. 
    Id. at 1-2
    .
    1
    Plaintiff then raised this purported inaccuracy, and BOP submitted his allegations to the
    District of Columbia’s Probation Office, known as the Court Services and Offender Supervision
    Agency (CSOSA). CSOSA reviewed the material and determined that the information in the
    PSR was in fact correct. See Motion, Exh. E (CSOSA Letter of Nov. 10, 2010).
    Plaintiff nonetheless filed suit in this Court on May 31, 2011, alleging that the BOP and
    USPC had created and maintained an inaccurate record in the form of the PSR in violation of the
    Privacy Act and his right to due process. Compl. at 2. Defendants have responded by filing the
    instant Motion to Dismiss.
    II.    Legal Standard
    Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of an action where a complaint fails “to state a
    claim upon which relief can be granted.” When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged
    under Rule 12(b)(6), the factual allegations presented in it must be presumed true and should be
    liberally construed in plaintiff’s favor. Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics & Coordination
    Unit, 
    507 U.S. 163
    , 164 (1993). The notice pleading rules are “not meant to impose a great
    burden on a plaintiff,” Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 
    544 U.S. 336
    , 347 (2005), and he or she
    must thus be given every favorable inference that may be drawn from the allegations of fact.
    Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 584 (2007). Although “detailed factual
    allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Twombly, 
    550 U.S. at 555
    ,
    “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
    is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    129 S. Ct. 1937
    , 1949 (2009) (internal quotation
    omitted). Plaintiff must put forth “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
    inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 
    Id.
     Though a plaintiff may
    survive a 12(b)(6) motion even if “recovery is very remote and unlikely,” Twombly, 
    550 U.S. at
                                           2
    555 (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 
    416 U.S. 232
    , 236 (1974)), the facts alleged in the complaint
    “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.
    III.    Analysis
    A. Statute of Limitations
    Defendants first argue that Plaintiff’s claim under the Privacy Act is barred by the statute
    of limitations. The Privacy Act states, “An action to enforce any liability created by this section
    … may be brought … within two years from the date on which the cause arises.” 5 U.S.C. §
    552a(g)(5). For the purposes of determining when the cause arose, “the statute of limitation does
    not begin to run until the ‘plaintiff knows or should know of the alleged violation.’” Kursar v.
    TSA, 
    751 F. Supp. 2d 154
    , 165 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Tijerina v. Walters, 
    821 F.2d 789
    , 798
    (D.C. Cir. 1987)); see also Szymanski v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 
    870 F. Supp. 377
    , 378 (D.D.C.
    1994) (“A cause of action [under the Privacy Act] arises … at the time that … the plaintiff knew
    or had reason to know of the error.”). Therefore, the statute of limitations was triggered here
    when Plaintiff first became aware of the erroneous information in his PSR.
    In this case, Plaintiff would have had an opportunity to review his PSR, which contained
    the allegedly erroneous information, before both his 2002 and 2006 parole hearings. See Motion,
    Exh. A (2002 and 2006 parole denials).1 Nor would the doctrine of equitable tolling apply here
    since that doctrine “applies most commonly when the plaintiff ‘despite all due diligence . . . is
    unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim.’” Chung v. U.S. Dep’t
    of Justice, 
    333 F.3d 273
    , 278 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). As Plaintiff did not lack access
    1
    Even if these records are not to be considered as part of Plaintiff’s administrative records, which could be
    considered on a motion to dismiss, see Bernard v. Dept. of Defense, 
    362 F. Supp. 2d 272
    , 279 (D.D.C. 2005), the
    Court may consider them in converting this Motion into one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
    Plaintiff here has not asked for additional time to submit any other records challenging the existence of these
    hearings; indeed, he himself admits they occurred. See Opp. at 6. Furthermore, these documents are certified USPC
    documents, the authenticity of which is not subject to debate.
    3
    to the vital information – indeed, he twice had the opportunity to review it previously – his
    claims are time-barred.
    B. BOP Exemption
    Even were the statute of limitations not a bar, Plaintiff’s claim against BOP would fail
    because the PSR maintained by BOP is exempt from the provisions of the Privacy Act. Under
    the terms of the Act, the head of an agency may exempt any system of records if “maintained by
    an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining
    to the enforcement of criminal laws, including … parole authorities, and which consists of …
    reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the
    criminal laws . . . through release from supervision.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2). Pursuant to this
    authority, BOP has exempted certain record systems from the Privacy Act, including the Inmate
    Central Record System that maintains the Plaintiff’s PSR. See 
    28 C.F.R. § 16.97
    (a)(4). Because
    this record system is exempt from the Privacy Act, BOP need not correct Plaintiff’s PSR. See
    White v. U.S. Probation Office, 
    148 F.3d 1124
    , 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (plaintiff inmate barred
    from seeking amendment of his presentence report); Molzen v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No.
    05-2360, 
    2007 WL 779059
    , at *4 (D.D.C., Mar. 8, 2007). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against the
    Bureau of Prisons cannot succeed.
    C. Accuracy of PSR
    While this provision may exempt BOP, USPC is not similarly shielded. That matters not
    at all here because, even absent the procedural bars, Plaintiff can obtain no relief because he
    misinterprets the records that he attaches to his Complaint. See ECF No. 1 at 6-7. In other
    words, there is no inaccuracy in his PSR to be corrected. CSOSA’s review of the Superior Court
    records revealed that the PSR correctly counted the conviction for Assault with a Dangerous
    4
    Weapon (Case No. 5513-78), which Plaintiff claims had been dismissed. CSOSA determined,
    instead, that Plaintiff’s Auto Tampering charge (Case No. 4308-78) had been dismissed. See
    CSOSA Letter. The Court’s independent review, no doubt assisted by many years of reading
    Superior Court jackets, confirms CSOSA’s determination.
    The first page appended shows that it is an excerpt from the first page of the court jacket
    belonging to juvenile case 5513-78 because that number appears on the far right of the page in
    large type displayed vertically. A related case is 4308-78, which appears under the heading
    “Cross References” at the top of the page. The second page appended is demonstrably not from
    the same case jacket, and this is where Plaintiff’s confusion (if it is not intentional) stems from.
    See ECF No. 1 at 7. The docket entries on this page refer twice to case 5513-78 as a different
    case, which shows that this second page is not from the 5513-78 jacket, but rather from the
    jacket of the related case, presumably 4308-78 An entry notes that the current case (again,
    presumably 4308-78) will “be heard along [with] J-5513-78.” Then Plaintiff is noted as being
    “committed to SRA [the predecessor of Youth Rehabilitation Services] in J-5513-78 this case is
    hereby dismissed.” It certainly would have been better if the clerk had inserted a semicolon or
    period between “J-5513-78” and “this,” but the meaning remains clear: Plaintiff was committed
    in 5513-78, and “this case” refers to 4308-78 because that is the jacket on which these entries are
    being made. The case being dismissed is thus not 5513-78.
    Plaintiff has thus suffered no injury where no error was actually made in his PSR.
    D. Due Process
    Plaintiff last alleges that BOP deprived him of due process “under the Privacy Act.” See
    Compl. at 2. It is unclear whether he seeks to assert a separate constitutional claim in addition to
    his action under the Privacy Act. Even if he were endeavoring to do so, “[i]nsofar as his
    5
    constitutional claims are in fact reiterations of his claims that the [agencies] violated the Privacy
    Act, those claims therefore must fail.” Blazy v. Tenet, 
    979 F. Supp. 10
    , 27 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing
    Spagnola v. Mathis, 
    859 F.2d 223
    , 228 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). This is particularly so where no error
    exists.
    IV.       Conclusion
    As the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish a claim upon which relief can be
    granted against BOP or USPC, the Court will issue a contemporaneous order granting
    Defendants’ Motion.
    /s/ James E. Boasberg
    JAMES E. BOASBERG
    United States District Judge
    Date: January 27, 2012
    6