BUSTILLO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 3/15/16.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FERNANDO BUSTILLO,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
OF JUSTICE et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13-1283 (RBW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff is a federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana
(“USP Terre Haute”). He challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) responses to his requests
for information under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012). What
remains of this case concerns the plaintiff’s request for the name of the guard who admitted him
to USP Terre Haute on July 23, 2012. See Mar. 23, 2015 Mem. Op. and Order at 7-8, ECF No.
22 (finding genuine dispute raised as to the BOP’s interpretation of FOIA Request Number
2013-05919). The BOP has reprocessed that request and has moved for summary judgment
under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 24. As explained below, the BOP’s release of the requested information
entitles it to summary judgment on the remaining issue in this case.
In a letter dated May 14, 2015, the BOP informed the plaintiff that in accordance with the
Court’s March 23 ruling, it “conducted a search for documents containing the names of the staff
assigned to receiving and admitting newly arrived inmates at USP Terre Haute on July 23,
2012.” Second Declaration of Kara Christenson (“Second Christenson Decl.”), Attachment

1

(“Att.”) C, ECF No. 24-2 (“May 14, 2015 letter”). The BOP released five pages of information,
id., which “consist[ed] of a one-page Intake Screening Form, a one-page Unit Admission and
Orientation Program Checklist, two-pages of Acknowledgment of Inmate Forms, Part 1& 2 and
Part 3& 4, and a one-page Basic Safety Regulations Form.” Christenson Decl. ¶ 19. All but the
intake form were released in their entirety. Id. The BOP redacted information from the onepage intake form under FOIA exemption 7(F), codified in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), but it informed the
plaintiff that he could view that document in its entirety “pursuant to the local access procedures
described in Program Statement 1351.05, Release of Information.” May 14, 2015 letter at 2.
The BOP further disclosed, “as a matter of agency discretion,” two “names of the staff assigned
to the USP Receiving and Discharge Unit responsible for processing incoming inmates at USP
Terre Haute on July 23, 2012,” id., which the Court finds was the very information the plaintiff
had requested.
The plaintiff contends that a genuine issue exists nonetheless because he “is entitled to
know the complete name of the abusive guard that admitted him to administrative detention.”
Plaintiff’s Statement of Disputed Material Facts ¶ 4, ECF No. 36. But, as the defendants
correctly point out, the instant FOIA request does not seek information about administrative
detention. See Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Defs.’ Reply”) at 3, ECF No. 38. And, while not probative of the issue at hand, the
defendants have pointed to documents in the supplemental record showing that the plaintiff “was
never placed in administrative segregation on July 23, 2012.” Id.; Second Christenson Decl.,
Att. B (“Inmate History Quarters”). Rather, the defendants note that the plaintiff was “placed
into Disciplinary Segregation [on] August 19, 2012.” Defs.’ Reply at 4, n.4. Any request for
records pertaining to that placement, however, is beyond the scope of this litigation.

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the defendants have now fully complied
with their disclosure obligations under the FOIA and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1

DATE: March 15, 2016

1

_______s/______________
Reggie B. Walton
United States District Judge

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

3