Love v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER : the Court DENIES the motion to alter or amend the judgment 10 . Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 5/18/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
BRYANT LOVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:18-CV-11 PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Bryant Love, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion to alter or amend the
order dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. “A court may grant a Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant presents newly discovered
evidence that was not available at the time of trial or if the movant points to evidence in
the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact.” Matter of Prince, 85
F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996); Deutsch v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1993).
Love filed a complaint, alleging a claim under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and seeking expedited processing of
his request for his investigative file. ECF 1. I dismissed this case as malicious because
there was no apparent valid reason for Love to subject the government to civil
proceedings for the sole purpose of obtaining discovery for his pending criminal case in
light of the discovery procedures available to criminal defendants. ECF 8.
Love now argues that he should be allowed to proceed because the drafters of
the relevant FOIA regulations were aware of criminal defendants’ ability to obtain

discovery in criminal proceedings when they drafted the regulations. The Freedom of
Information Act generally requires federal agencies to search for and release agency
records upon a citizen’s request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A); U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters
Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 754–55 (1989). The regulations provide for
expedited processing if the request involves “the loss of substantial due process rights.”
28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iii). To Love’s point, criminal defendants may qualify for such
expedited processing when seeking records from the FBI for use in pending criminal
proceedings. See e.g., Aguilera v. F.B.I., 941 F. Supp. 144, 149 (D.D.C. 1996); Cleaver v.
Kelley, 427 F. Supp. 80, 81 (D.D.C. 1976). However, in these cases, the criminal
defendants typically seek federal records for use in state criminal proceedings. See id. By
contrast, Love seeks federal records for use in a federal criminal case by filing a federal
civil case with the same parties in the same court. As I discussed previously, here, a
FOIA lawsuit is a significantly inferior mechanism for obtaining criminal discovery
when compared to filing the proper motion in a criminal case. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16;
Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(7). In the absence of any
reasonable purpose for bringing such a lawsuit, I can only conclude that the lawsuit is
malicious.
Love further argues that, contrary to the previous order, he has requested the
investigative file in his criminal case. He attaches correspondence with his criminal
defendant attorneys, indicating that he has discussed his request with them and also
sent requests to the federal prosecutor. However, Love has not brought this discovery

2

issue to the court’s attention in the appropriate forum, his criminal case. As previously
discussed, Love is much more likely to receive the documents he needs by filing the
proper motion in his criminal case due to the more favorable disclosure requirements in
criminal proceedings and with assistance of counsel. He has simply provided no
reasonable basis for his refusal to pursue them in his criminal case or for his insistence
on pursuing them in a civil action.
For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion to alter or amend the judgment
(ECF 10).
SO ORDERED on May 18, 2018.

/s/ Philip P. Simon
Judge
United States District Court

3