Opinion
Civ. A. No. 86-0810.
July 31, 1986.
Michael Alan Crooker, pro se.
Patricia D. Carter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Alan Crooker is a pro se plaintiff who is currently incarcerated at the federal penitentiary in Petersburg, Virginia. Under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, Crooker seeks an order directing defendant United States Marshals Service to produce agency records maintained by the Service in his name. The matter is before the Court on defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In consideration of the entire record in this case, the Court shall grant defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
The Court has conducted an exhaustive survey of federal court dockets to determine the number of FOIA and/or Privacy Act ( 5 U.S.C. § 552a) suits filed historically by plaintiff. This survey reveals that Crooker has become somewhat of an expert in FOIA/Privacy Act litigation. Since 1978, Crooker has filed at least sixty such actions. See infra, Tables A-F.
Crooker has filed FOIA and/or Privacy Act suits in district courts in the District of Columbia, First, and Second Circuits. He has sought information maintained in his name from the following federal agencies: (1) Department of Justice; (2) Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; (3) Federal Bureau of Prisons; (4) United States Marshals Service; (5) Federal Bureau of Investigation; (6) United States Parole Commission; (7) United States Secret Service; (8) Central Intelligence Agency; (9) Office of the Pardon Attorney; (10) United States Postal Service; (11) Department of the Army; (12) Department of State; (13) Internal Revenue Service; (14) Office of the United States Attorney General; (15) Office of the United States Solicitor General; (16) Drug Enforcement Agency; and (17) United States Customs Service. See infra Tables A-F.
On March 24, 1983, defendant in the present FOIA action received a letter from the plaintiff, which requested any records that were maintained by the defendant in his name. The Service construed Crooker's letter as a Privacy Act request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The Service had a significant backlog of prior requests, and responded to such requests in the order in which they were received. Crooker v. United States Marshals Service, 577 F. Supp. 1217 (D.D.C. 1983). When the Service responded to plaintiff's request in April of 1983, it made plaintiff aware of its backlog, but advised him that it had begun to process his request. Id. Dissatisfied with the Service's response, Crooker filed suit in this Court (C.A. No. 83-1648). On October 28, 1983, Judge June Green of this Court granted the Service's motion to dismiss, because Crooker had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 1217-18. Dismissal was without prejudice.
Subsequently, Crooker filed in this Court another FOIA case against the Service (C.A. No. 85-2599), alleging that defendant had illegally withheld records maintained in Crooker's name. The Service moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, contending that the information sought by plaintiff had been validly withheld under FOIA exemptions (b)(5) ("inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters") and (b)(7) ("investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes"). Crooker failed to oppose the Service's motion. After evaluating the merits of the Service's exemption arguments, Judge Oberdorfer granted the motion in toto, and dismissed the FOIA complaint with prejudice (Order of December 16, 1985).
The res judicata implication of Judge Oberdorfer's order ( see also Memorandum Opinion of December 16, 1985) is obvious with respect to the present FOIA action. Moreover, Crooker has failed again to oppose a motion to dismiss filed by the Service. Therefore, after evaluation of the complaint and the merits of defendant's unopposed motion, the Court shall grant the Service's motion, and enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice (again).
It should be noted that the Court recently granted an unopposed motion to dismiss in another FOIA case brought by Crooker against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (C.A. No. 86-0516, Order of June 30, 1986).
Furthermore, given the plethora of FOIA and/or Privacy Act suits filed by plaintiff over the last eight years, which name several agencies as defendants time and time again, see supra note 1 and accompanying text, and the fact that plaintiff fails routinely to oppose motions to dismiss, see, e.g., supra note 2; infra, Tables A-F), it is evident that Crooker's litigation efforts have been for purposes of harassment — i.e., not exercised in good faith as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Accordingly, as a sanction under Rule 11, the Court shall enter an order requiring the plaintiff, when filing any further FOIA and/or Privacy Act complaints in this Court that name any of the aforementioned agencies as defendants, to attach thereto a memorandum of law stating why the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the intended suit (i.e., a memorandum showing that the FOIA or Privacy Act request has not been previously ruled upon by a district court).
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A. TABLE OF AGENCY CASES ........................... 1144 B. UNREPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT .. 1144-1148 C. REPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT .... 1148-1150 D. REPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS ....... 1150-1151 E. UNREPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS ..... 1152 F. INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICES ............................................ 1153
A. TABLE OF AGENCY CASES
Cases filed in the Number of Cases filed in the Number of Cases Appealed in the 1st and 2nd Circuit AGENCY D.C. Circuit naming agency D.C. Circuit naming agency naming agency United States Department of Justice 10 2 13 United States Department of Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 8 4 2 Federal Bureau of Prisons 5 1 1 United States Marshal's Service 3 2 Drug Enforcement Administration 2 1 7 Federal Bureau of Investigation 3 1 2 United States Parole Commission 2 United States Secret Service 2 Central Intelligence Agency 2 1 Office of the Pardon Attorney 1 United States Postal Service 1 Department of the Army 1 United States Department of State 1 1 Internal Revenue Service 1 1 Office of the Attorney General 1 Office of the Solicitor General 1 1B. UNREPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION Crooker Drug Enforcement Agency Crooker United States Parole Commission, 5 U.S.C. § 552 552Crooker Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crooker Federal Bureau of Prisons Crooker United States Marshals Service Crooker Federal Bureau of Prisons Crooker Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Crooker Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Crooker United States Secret Service Crooker United States Parole Commission 5 U.S.C. § 552 Crooker United States Postal Service Crooker Central Intelligence Agency Crooker United States Marshals Service Crooker Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Crooker Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice Crooker Drug Enforcement Administration Crooker Federal Bureau of Prisons Crooker Office of the Pardon Attorney, Crooker U.S. Parole Commission, 730 F.2d 1 760 F.2d 1 Crooker Internal Revenue Service Crooker Standish Crooker Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Crooker Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, et al., Crooker Department of Treasury and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Crooker United States Dept. of Treasury Crooker Federal Bureau of Investigations, et al., Crooker Office of the Solicitor General, et al., Crooker United States Bureau of Prisons, et al., Crooker United States Department of Justice, et al., 1) v. Drug Enforcement Crooker sought a copy of the "Clandestine Laboratory Crooker filed a motion to Agency (DEA) Guide" in November, 1985. DEA acknowledged dismiss two weeks after C.A. No. the request, but Crooker had not received filing a suit. 86-0351 the guide at the time he filed suit in February, 1986. 2) v. U.S. Parole Commission Crooker sought records maintained under his name Defendant's motion to including those surrounding his National Parole dismiss was granted in C.A. Appeal in August, 1985. The request was that no documents had No. 86-0352 acknowledged in October 1985. Fifty-seven pages of been withheld improperly. documents were released to Crooker by the Parole Commission in February, 1986. The remaining documents were exempt from disclosure pursuant to (b)(2) and § (b)(5). 3) v. Federal Bureau of Crooker requested an updated copy of the FBI index J. Hogan granted unopposed Investigations (FBI) in December, 1985. motion to dismiss C.A. June 30, 1986. No. 86-0516 4) v. Federal Bureau of In December 1985, Crooker requested statistical The case is pending before Prisons data requiring population by region and institution, J. Hogan Civil Action the number of murders and violent crimes which No. 86-0510 have occurred in federal prisons institutions during the past 10 years, and a report on the murder of two corrections officers at Marion Prison in October, 1983 5) v. U.S. Marshals Service Crooker requested records maintained under his Case before the Court; name in January, 1986 J. Hogan granted unopposed C.A. No. motion to dismiss 86-0810 6) v. Federal Bureau of Crooker requested agency records concerning contracts The case is pending before Prisons between FCI Danbury and two corporations J. Hogan. Civ.A. No. in January 1986. In his suit, Crooker contends 86-0811 that the agency complies with FOIA requests only after being sued. 7) v. Bureau of Alcohol, Crooker requested records surrounding his arrest Judge Oberdorfer dismissed Tobacco and Firearms on explosive charges, along with other unnamed the suit as being frivolous (BATF) records in October 1984. In December 1984, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § C.A. No. 85-1793 BATF denied Crooker's request. Crooker appealed 1915(d) in that it was identical to and BATF denied the appeal in January 1985. the complaint filed against Crooker filed suit. BATF in Civil Action No. 85-0615 8) v. Bureau of Alcohol, Crooker requested documents maintained under his The district court granted Tobacco and Firearms name by BATF. Crooker's request was denied in defendant's motion for summary (BATF) reliance to Exception 7(A), in that there was an judgment and dismissed the C.A. No. 85-0615 ongoing investigation and all the requested case. On appeal the court Ct.App. No. 85-5930 documents were investigatory records, the release of vacated the summary judgment which would interfere with the investigation and remanded the case with instructions to view the requested documents individually to determine whether Exemption 7(A) applied rather than invoking the exemption with a blanket justification that the documents were contained in an investigatory file. 9) v. U.S. Secret Service Crooker sought records maintained under his name Judge Oberdorfer granted compiled since January 1, 1984. Crooker's appeal defendant's motion for Civ.A. No. from the denial of his request was denied. summary judgment and ruled 85-1967 Crooker filed suit. The Secret Service had released that the failure to disclose some documents but withheld other documents the requested information invoking exemptions under 5 U.S.C. was warranted under the FOIA § 552(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), exemptions. and (b)(7)(E). 10) v. U.S. Parole Commission In September 1984, Crooker requested records Crooker's agency appeal surrounding his parole revocation. Crooker's suit was not denied, and upon alleged that his appeal of the denial of his request motion, defendant was Civ.A. No. was denied. granted a stay pending 85-2248 Ct.App. the agency's decision No. 86-5153 concerning Crooker's appeal. On appeal the Parole Commission affirmed the decision to withhold certain information pursuant to (b)(5), (7)(C) and (7)(D). Judge Oberdorfer granted defendant's motion to file an affidavit and attachment in camera and thereafter granted defendant's motion to dismiss. Crooker filed a motion to vacate or modify the dismissal order and a motion for attorney's fees. Both motions were denied. Crooker then filed a Motion for Clarification. Since all the information requested by Crooker had been released during the course of litigation, Crooker's Motion for Clarification was denied as being moot. Crooker has appealed the orders granting defendant's motions for enlargement of time in response to plaintiff's motion for clarification, dated March 6, and March 12, 1986, and the order denying plaintiff's Motion for Clarification, dated March 27, 1986. The Court of Appeals ordered Crooker on May 7, 1986, to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed since his docketing statement has not been filed. 11) v. U.S. Postal Service Crooker requested certain criminal records concerning Judge Oberdorfer granted himself. The agency informed Crooker that the defendant's motion C.A. No. search and duplication costs would have to be for summary judgment 85-2427 paid. Crooker's request for a waiver of the fee and dismissed the suit was denied. Crooker's agency appeal regarding noting that denial of the fee waiver was also denied. Crooker then the fee waiver was not filed suit. arbitrary or capricious. Crooker's motion to reconsider was denied. 12) v. Central Intelligence Crooker sought agency records concerning himself. Judge Oberdorfer granted Agency (CIA) After a thorough search, the CIA determined that defendant's motion for C.A. No. the documents in their possession were exempt summary judgment, which 85-2437 from disclosure under FOIA exceptions (b)(3) and Crooker never opposed, (b)(5). The remaining documents requested by and dismissed the case. Crooker originated in other agencies and the CIA In a letter dated two days referred Crooker's request to those agencies. before Judge Oberdorfer's Segregable portions of the CIA documents were decision, Crooker requested released to Crooker. dismissal of his suit. 13) v. U.S. Marshals Service Crooker sought records maintained by the agency Judge Oberdorfer granted under his name including records regarding his defendant's motion for C.A. No. arrest and treatment by the U.S. Marshals Service summary judgment and 85-2599 and all records related to his subsequent tort dismissed the case. claim and suit. Crooker's request was denied in part because the requested records were prepared in connection with litigation, and thus, were protected from disclosure under FOIA exemption 5 and Exemption d(5) of the Privacy Act. The documents released to Crooker were excised pursuant to 5 U.S.C. (b)(7)(C). 14) v. Bureau of Alcohol, Crooker requested records pertaining to a substance Judge Oberdorfer granted Tobacco and Firearms called thermite. He also requested a fee defendant's motion for (BATF) waiver which was denied. Crooker's appeal regarding summary judgment and C.A. the fee waiver was also denied. dismissed the case. No. 85-2600 Crooker was ordered on Ct. Appeals April 7, 1986, to show No. 86-5044 cause why his appeal should not be dismissed since his docketing statement has not been filed. 15) v. Department of Justice Crooker sought copies of all records maintained Crooker consented to (DOJ) under his name. The DOJ's response requesting defendant's motion to Crooker to satisfy the provisions of the Privacy dismiss, pending further C.A. Act so that his request could be processed was administrative processing No. 85-3787 returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked of his FOIA request. "Unclaimed, Returned to Sender". The case was dismissed without prejudice. 16) v. Drug Enforcement Crooker sought records maintained under his Judge Green ruled that Administration (DEA) name. DEA notified Crooker that it had no since the DEA had conducted C.A. records which were responsive to his request. two detailed searches for No. 83-1718 Crooker then filed suit. the requested records, (D.D.C. 1984) the agency's inability to find any requested records could not be doubted. Once the agency had complied with the FOIA request, the case was moot. Judge Green granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. 17) v. Federal Bureau of Crooker sought a copy of his presentence report Judge Green ruled that Prisons, United States in August 1980. Crooker had sought the same the doctrine of res judicata C.A. No. 83-2845 Department of Justice presentence report in v. applied to the case and 2845 Ct. of 614 F.2d (2nd Cir. 1980) and in granted defendant's motion Appeals No. 84-5288 v. to dismiss. On appeal the (D.C. Cir. Jan. 15, (1st Cir. 1984); Crooker was unsuccessful in both court dismissed the case 1986) attempts. as being moot in that Crooker had already received the presentence report as the result of his suit filed against the Parole Commission. See (1st Cir. 1985). 18) v. Internal Revenue Crooker sought copies of law enforcement records The District Court granted Service (IRS) maintained under his name and all records defendant's motion for C.A. No. surrounding the investigation of his tax returns for summary judgment and ruled 83-2506 Ct.App. the three preceding years. IRS released 14 documents that the requested documents No. 84-5892 in full and 19 in part. Crooker filed suit to were exempt from disclosure compel the release of the remaining documents. pursuant to FOIA exemptions Thereafter, IRS released 8 additional documents (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(7)(C). with portions deleted. Six of the eight documents Crooker's motion for attorney's had been released in part previously. fees was denied since Crooker had not substantially prevailed in his suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling in regard to the denial of attorney's fees. 19) v. Office of the Pardon Crooker requested the disclosure of documents Crooker's petition was C.A. Attorney U.S. Dept. of which were to be relied upon in connection with dismissed noting that No. 80-0611 Justice (DOJ) his petition for executive clemency to the President. depositions would be Standish, the U.S. Pardon Attorney, denied available after suit was Crooker's request. Crooker filed a petition to take filed. depositions. 20) v. Office of the Deputy Crooker sought records maintained under his name Judge Green granted Attorney General by DAG. DAG notified Crooker that no records summary judgment for (DAG) U.S. Dept. of existed at DAG, but that records located in the the defendant, noting et al., C.A. No. Justice office of the Associate Attorney General could be that no records had been 80-1404 obtained upon payment of the copying fee of withheld and that Crooker $13.90. Crooker's request for a fee waiver was was not entitled to a fee denied. waiver for the records maintained in the Office of the Associate Attorney General. 21) v. Bureau of Alcohol, Crooker sought records that had surfaced during The documents that were Tobacco and Firearms his suit filed in Massachusetts against the Department subjected to the stipulated (BATF), U.S. Dept. of of Justice. The bulk of the records had been the dismissal were barred from Treasury subject of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice the suit being that the C.A. No. 80-1405 in v. previous dismissal was a final C.A. No. 79-2008, judgment. The deleted portions but six documents were released to Crooker in were found to be exempt deleted form. Two additional documents could not be pursuant to FOIA exemption located. (7)(C). Since the BATF could not locate the remaining two documents, the court ruled that the records were not being improperly withheld. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, the court further ruled that Crooker was not entitled to attorney's fees since he had not substantially prevailed in his suit. 22) v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Crooker requested copies of photographs of agency Judge Hart dismissed the suit Bureau of Alcohol, employees from BATF. Following the denial of noting that Crooker was not C.A. No. Tobacco and Firearms his administrative appeal, Crooker filed suit. entitled to photographs of 80-1406 (BATF) Treasury employees. 23) v. Federal Bureau of Crooker requested records maintained under his Judge Hart dismissed the suit Investigation (FBI), name from FBI field offices in Boston and New noting that Crooker could U.S. Dept. of Justice Haven, Connecticut. The FBI requested a copying pay $9.40. C.A. No. fee of $9.40. Crooker refused to pay. 80-1407 24) v. Office of the Solicitor Crooker requested copies of all documents Judge Hart dismissed General, U.S. Dept. of maintained under his name in connection with 6 the suit without Justice specific cases in which adverse judgments were prejudice to allow C.A.A. No. entered against the United States. Crooker to amend his 80-1408 request for documents by setting forth the names and numbers of the cases. 25) v. United States Bureau Crooker sought copies of four administrative remedy Judge Hart dismissed of Prisons, U.S. Dept. abstracts from the Bureau of Prisons. The the suit under 28 U.S.C. of Justice Bureau requested copying fees. Crooker's request 1915(d), noting that C.A. No. 80-1409 for a fee waiver was denied. Crooker lost his Crooker had not indicated administrative appeal and filed suit. he could not pay the fee and that Crooker was "engaged in harassment," citing civil action numbers: 78-1820, 78-1867, 79-2560, 79-3336, 80-0081, 80-0611, 80-1404, 80-1405, 80-1406, 80-1407, and 80-1408. 26) v. U.S. Dept. of Justice Crooker requested documents maintained under his Crooker's motion for (DOJ), Civil Division name from the Civil Division and the FBI. Some attorney's fees in his DOJ, Criminal Division of the requested documents were withheld and action against the Civil Civ.A. No. DOJ, Identification Crooker filed an administrative appeal. Having Division of the DOJ and 78-1820 Ct.App. Division of the Federal received no response on his appeal. Crooker filed the Identification Division No. 80-1005 Bureau of Investigation suit. All documents relevant to Crooker's request of the FBI was granted, but (FBI), Los Angeles were released and Crooker did not contest any denied in regard to the Field Office of the exemptions which were asserted. Crooker moved for Criminal Division of the FBI. Additional attorney's fees, noting that it took 13 months for DOJ and the Los Angeles agencies involved in his FOIA request to be completed. Field Office of the FBI. processing the FOIA However, the award was request: Executive limited to $38.75 since Office for the United Crooker had no overhead States Attorney, U.S. and was being supported Marshals Service, and at the public expense. the Drug Enforcement Crooker's motion to Administration (DEA). dismiss was also granted. Crooker's motion to reconsider the award of attorney's fees was denied. Defendants appealed and Crooker filed a cross-appeal. The appeal was dismissed.C. REPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION Crooker Bureau 670 F.2d 1051 of Alcohol, Tobacco 670 F.2d 1051 and Firearms 635 F.2d 887 Crooker Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Id. en banc. Crooker United States Department of Treasury 663 F.2d 140 pro se Crooker United States Department of State, Crooker Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice 577 F. Supp. 1212 Crooker Central Intelligence Agency Crooker United States Marshals Service Crooker United States Secret Service, Crooker Department of the Army Crooker Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Crooker Federal Bureau of Prisons pro se 1) v. Bureau of Alcohol, see Rehearing granted: see Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) Civ.A. No. 79-2560 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 1A) v. Bureau of Alcohol, Crooker sought a copy of the BATF manual entitled The District Court granted Tobacco and Firearms "Surveillance of Premises, Vehicles and Persons the Government's motion for (BATF) — New Agent Training." BATF originally denied summary judgment deciding Civ.A. No. Crooker's request in its entirety, but following that the material was 79-2560 670 F.2d an administrative appeal, the Director of BATF protected from disclosure 1051 released portions of the manual except for the under Exemption 2. On appeal (D.C. Cir. 1981) portions which "would benefit those attempting to violate the law and avoid detection." at the Court decided without 1053-54. Crooker filed a FOIA suit for the released argument that the withheld of the entire manual. portions of the manual were not protected by Exemption 2. However, the majority of the full court of appeals voted to vacate the panel decision and rehear the case Upon rehearing the Court affirmed the District Court's decision that the portions of the manual sought were protected from disclosure by Exemption 2. 2) v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Crooker submitted a FOIA request for the BATF The District Court granted Bureau of Alcohol, manual entitled "Conspiracy" on September 26, Crooker's Motion to dismiss Tobacco and Firearms 1978. The BATF did not reply until January 15, but denied his motion for Civ.A. No. (BATF) 1979, when it informed Crooker that his request attorney's fees and costs, 80-0081 was under review. In March 1979 BATF determined finding that Crooker had not (D.C. Cir. 1980) that the manual could be released but a substantially prevailed in copy of the ruling was not sent to Crooker. his suit. On appeal the Crooker requested the manual again in April 1979 Court ruled that Crooker and August 1979 but received no response. had substantially prevailed Crooker filed suit in January 1980. The Agency but remanded the case for sent the manual to Crooker in February 1980. further determination whether nation whether Crooker was was entitled to attorney's fees. 3) v. State Department Crooker made a FOIA request to the State Judge Green ruled that Department for FBI files maintained under his name. the State Department C.A. No. After receiving no response, Crooker filed suit on was not required to released 78-1867 October 6, 1978. On October 5, 1978, the State lease the requested documents (D.D.C. 1979) 498 Department notified Crooker that his request had since the FBI had already F. Supp. 210. been referred to the FBI as the result of his released them. Judge Green Affirmed in 628 earlier January 1977 request and that the documents denied Crooker's motion for F.2d 9 had been released to him by the FBI on April 17, summary judgment. His (D.C. Cir. 1980) 1977. application for attorney's fees was denied since Crooker had not substantially prevailed in his suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. 4) v. Civil Division of the Crooker requested various documents pertaining to Since all of the records, U.S. Department of himself. files and documents Justice requested had been produced, the action had become moot C.A. No. and the case was dismissed. 83-2350, (D.D.C. 1983) 5) v. Central Intelligence Crooker requested records concerning himself and Dismissed on the Agency (CIA) records concerning the testing of the toxin, ricin. grounds that Crooker C.A. No. Crooker later withdrew his request for records had not exhausted the 83-1717, 577 concerning himself. The CIA requested a commitment available administrative F. Supp. 1225 from Crooker to pay for processing fees. remedies. (D.D.C. 1983) Crooker requested a waiver of the copying fees. 6) v. U.S. Marshals Service Crooker requested any records maintained under Since the Marshals Service his name. was searching for Crooker's C.A. No. records and had notified 83-1648, 577 Crooker that his request F. Supp. 1217 would be complied with, (D.D.C. 1983) but that it was delayed Ct.App. No. by a backlog of requests, 83-2205 and since Crooker had failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies, the case was dismissed. Crooker's appeal was dismissed also. 7) v. U.S. Secret Service Crooker requested all documents, photos, files or Since the agency was records that were maintained under his name. willing to comply with C.A. No. The Secret Service notified Crooker that they the request and since 83-2101, 577 F. Supp. would comply with his request, but that payment Crooker had not exhausted 1218 (D.D.C. 1983) for the materials from a previous request would available administrative Ct.App. No. 83-2204 have to be received before the second request remedies, the court lacked would be processed. Crooker did not pay the fee subject matter jurisdiction and the agency did not process his request. and the case was, therefore, dismissed. Crooker's appeal was dismissed also. 8) v. Department of the Army Crooker requested documents surrounding the testing The denial of the fee of the toxin, ricin, which allegedly was performed waiver was appropriate C.A. No. by the Department of the Army for Massachusetts since furnishing the 83-2349, 577 law enforcement agencies. The Amy requested information would not F. Supp. 1220 payment before the materials would be processed primarily benefit the (D.D.C. 1983) since Crooker had outstanding payments for previous general public. Since Ct.App. No. FOIA requests with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker indicated that he 84-5089 and Firearms. Crooker requested a waiver of fees would not pay for the costs which was denied. incurred in processing his FOIA request, the Army had the fight to demand payment prior to processing ing the information. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the cue was dismissed. Crooker's appeal was dismissed as being frivolous. 9) v. Bureau of Alcohol, Crooker sought any records maintained under his The court determined Tobacco and Firearms name and for an updated copy of his Treasury that since the information (BATF) Enforcement Communications System (TECS) record sought was not indexed C.A. printout. BATF informed Crooker that no new under the name of the No. 83-1716, 577 entries had been made since his previous requestor, it did not F. Supp. 1213 1982 request. Crooker repeated his request and fall under the Privacy (D.D.C. 1983) asked that the search fees and copying costs Act. Thus, Crooker was Ct.App. No. 83-2203 requested by the BATF be waived. Crooker also not entitled to obtain the asked the agency to look into the records of copies free of charge. Stephen Crooker and Anton Nelson to see if he was His request was limited named in their files. The BATF denied Crooker's to FOIA where there are request for a fee waiver since the information search and duplication sought would not benefit the general public. fees. Since there were Crooker's appeal to the agency for a fee waiver no meaningful allegations was denied. He did receive an updated TECS. of public interest, a waiver of fees was not warranted. Crooker's remaining requests were moot. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant and dismissed the case. Crooker's appeal was dismissed also. 10) v. Federal Bureau of Crooker sought any photos, files or records maintained Defendant's motion to Prisons, United States tained under his name. The Bureau of Prisons replied dismiss was granted C.A. No. 83-2505, Department of Justice plied that Crooker's request would take 60-90 since the Bureau had 579 F. Supp. days to process and that the delay was caused because substantially complied 309 (D.D.C. 1984) cause the request had to be transferred to the with Crooker's request Ct.App. No. Northeast Regional Office. When Crooker did not and since Crooker had 84-5131 receive the records immediately he filed suit. The not exhausted his delay in processing Crooker's request was caused administrative remedies by problems in locating the records and due to a in regard to the deleted backlog of requests, but Crooker finally received portions. Since Crooker had the records he sought. Certain portions of the not substantially prevailed records Crooker received were deleted. Crooker in his suit, his request continued to seek the deleted portions and for attorney's fees was attorney's fees. denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.D. REPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS
CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION Crooker Office of the Pardon Attorney and U.S. Department of pro se. Justice Crooker United States Crooker United States Department of Justice, pro se pro se Crooker U.S. Department of the Treasury Id. Crooker United States Parole Commission, 760 F.2d 1 105 S.Ct. 317 760 F.2d 1 Crooker United States Parole Commission, 760 F.2d 1 730 F.2d 1 Crooker United States Department of Justice UNREPORTED CASES FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION Crooker Boston Field Office of Investigation, et at., Crooker Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, Crooker Department of Justice Crooker Department of Justice Crooker Department of Justice Crooker Los Angeles Field Office of the FBI 1) v. Office of Pardon Crooker sought to review the records connected Disclosure of the Deputy Attorney, Department with this petition for executive clemency filed with Attorney General's of Justice the office of the Pardon Attorney. Crooker acted memorandum to the President was denied; the case was 614 F.2d remanded for further 825 (2d Cir. 1980) proceedings to determine C.A. No. 79-2111 whether disclosure of the sentence computation record, the Bureau of Prisons progress report, and the pre-sentence report was permissible under FOIA. On remand the court determined that the presentence report was exempt from FOIA as a court document. 2) v. Motion to vacate sentence on grounds that evidence District court's determination 620 F.2d of oral threats made by Crooker to probation that the evidence was admissible 313 (1st Cir. 1980) officer was inadmissible under the doctrine of since the United States was not Cert. denied 449 collateral estoppel: Crooker had been acquitted in a party in the state proceedings U.S. 857 (1980) the Massachusetts Superior Court of charges was affirmed. C.A. No. 80-1095 involving the oral threats (NOT FOIA). 3) v. Department of Justice Crooker made a written request for a copy of any The District Court ruled "charging manuals, rules and guidelines used by that Crooker was not 632 the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of entitled to attorney's fees F.2d 916 (1st Cir. Massachusetts and/or the manner in which since he acted 1980) C.A. No. prosecutorial discretion will be exercised," on and he had not 80-1109 April 19, 1979. On May 22, 1979, Crooker filed suit "substantially prevailed" to compel disclosure. The documents were released in his suit. On appeal the during the course of litigation and Crooker court ruled that Crooker requested dismissal and attorney's fees. had "substantially prevailed" in his suit for disclosure of the documents, but that attorney's fees were not authorized under FOIA. 4) v. Internal Revenue Crooker filed suit against IRS under FOIA for the The District Court denied Service (IRS) release of documents relating to an investigation Crooker's claim for attorney's 634 of his 1979 income tax return. One month after fees, despite the fact that he F.2d 48 (2nd Crooker filed suit, IRS released the requested had substantially prevailed Cir. 1980) C.A. No. documents. Crooker then sought attorney's fees and in his suit, because Crooker 80-2087 costs. had made an inadequate showing of his interests in the records and of any public benefit in their disclosure. The Appeals Court affirmed noting the frequency of Crooker's FOIA suits and that FOIA "was not enacted to create a cottage industry for federal prisoners." at 49. 5) v. U.S. Parole Crooker filed suit under FOIA seeking release of The District Court held Commission, U.S. his pre-sentence report and drug detoxification that the Parole Commission 730 Department of Justice records. had properly withheld F.2d 1 (1st the presentence report Cir. 1984), 105 and medical records, but S.Ct. 317. Cert. ordered the Commission granted, judgment to furnish Crooker with a vacated and remanded. summary of medical records (1st pursuant to the Parole Act. Cir. 1985) C.A. No. The Appeals Court affirmed 83-1687 that the presentence report was not subject to disclosure under FOIA, but remanded for determination whether more medical records could be released without disclosing the source of information. This decision was vacated and remanded in . On remand in the court ordered the release of the presentence report. 6) v. U.S. Parole Crooker sought attorney's fees under FOIA based Attorney's fees were Commission, U.S. on the Court's previous decisions that the Parole awarded for work done 776 Department of Commission must furnish Crooker with copies of to secure the release of F.2d 366 (1st Justice his presentence report, (1st Cir. 1985), the presentence report Cir. 1985) C.A. No. and certain medical records, (1st due to the benefit to the 83-1687 Cir. 1984). public, but fees were not awarded for work done to secure the release of the medical records. 7) v. U.S. Department of Crooker, along with another inmate of the Federal Summary judgment was Justice, Bureau of Correctional Institute (FCI) Danbury, Connecticut, granted for the defendants 497 Prisons and on behalf of "all others similarly situated at because prison officials F. Supp. 500 the [FCI]," sought to enjoin prison officials from have the power to investigate (D.Conn. 1980) C.A. routinely and randomly monitoring prisoners' potential criminal violations No. 80-0146 personal and legal telephone calls. in order to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution. Since procedures for unmonitored legal telephone calls had been put into effect, that portion of plaintiffs' suit was moot. E. : 1) v. Federal Bureau of Crooker sought documents pertaining to himself. The FOIA exemptions Investigation (FBI), Portions of the documents were released and the were upheld and summary DOJ remainder were withheld pursuant to FOIA judgment was granted C.A. No. exemptions. for defendants. 78-608 (1st Cir.) 2) v. Boston Field Office of Crooker sought documents pertaining to himself. The FOIA exemptions the FBI, DOJ The documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA were upheld and summary exemptions. Crooker requested the documents a judgment was granted C.A. second time and when his request was denied for defendants. No. B-79-190 again he filed suit. 190 (2nd Cir.) 3) v. Miami Field Office of Crooker sought records pertaining to himself. The The FOIA exemptions the FBI, DOJ request also sought information about a third party were upheld and summary C.A. No. which was forwarded to the New York Office. judgment was granted B-79-191 (2nd Cir.) The records were withheld pursuant to FOIA for defendants. exemptions. 4) v. FBI, DOJ Crooker sought the FBI's manual on investigative The manual was released instructions. during litigation and the C.A. No. case was dismissed. B-79-299 (2nd Cir.) 5) v. FBI, DOJ Crooker sought records pertaining to himself in The exemptions were upheld connection with his convictions for mail fraud. and summary judgment was C.A. No. The documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA granted for defendants. D-79-346 (2nd Cir.) 6) v. FBI, DOJ Crooker sought records pertaining to himself. The case was dismissed for improper venue. C.A. No. B-80-24F. INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICES Information requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Kentucky:
1) 78-24 Crooker v. Boggs, Lilburn, Deputy Director of the United States Secret Service2) 78-117 Crooker v. Department of Justice, et al.,
Information requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Connecticut District:
1) B 79-59, Crooker v. Department of Justice, et al.,2) B 79-189, Crooker v. Office of the Pardon Attorney and the Department of Justice 3) B 79-192, Crooker v. Department of Justice
4) B 79-193 Crooker v. Department of Justice
5) B 79-399, Crooker v. Civil Division of the Department of Justice, et al.,
6) B 79-400, Crooker v. Drug Enforcement Agency, et al.,
7) B 79-437, Crooker v. Department of Justice
8) B 79-498, Crooker v. Department of Justice, et al.,
9) B 80-69, Crooker v. United States Customs Service, et al.,
10) 80-158, Crooker v. United States
11) 80-2006, Crooker v. Department of Justice 12) 84-2922, Crooker v. Warden
Information requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office Massachusetts District:
1) 79-1369, Crooker v. United States
2) 79-1465, Crooker v. Department of Justice
3) 79-1898, Crooker v. Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, et al.,
4) 79-2520-z, Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, et al.,
5) 80-76, Crooker v. United States
6) 83-0074-F, Crooker v. Department of Justice
7) 83-629K, Crooker v. Desmond, et al.,
8) 84-1044, Crooker v. United States
9) 84-2019, Crooker v. United States Marshal's Service