Haley v. Social Security Administration

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 6/11/2015. (c/m 6/12/15)(kr, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DONOVAN L. HALEY,
Plaintiff

*

v.

*

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Defendant

Civil Action No. JKB-14-3775

*

MEMORANDUM
Donovan L. Haley (AHaley@) is an inmate housed in Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran,
California. On December 3, 2014, the court received for filing his complaint against the Social
Security Administration (“SSA”). ECF No. 1. Haley claims that SSA has failed to properly
respond to his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests for documents and seeks review in
this court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), which provides a remedy under the FOIA for the
filing of a complaint to enjoin a federal agency from improperly withholding records. Id.
Pending are defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment
and Haley’s opposition. ECF Nos. 10 & 12. The court will dispense with a hearing. See Local
Rule 105.6. (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below, the court will, by separate Order,
GRANT defendant=s dispositive motion.
Background
Haley previously filed a case in this court regarding SSA’s failure to provide requested
records, which was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Haley v. Social
Security Administration, Civil Action No. RWT-12-3086 (D. Md.).

In the instant case, plaintiff indicates that on March 31, 2014, he requested a copy of his
individual records pursuant to FOIA and the Privacy Act1 by mailing his request to the “office of
the Custodian of Records/Information , 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235-0001.” ECF
No. 1-1. Haley requested records from January 1, 1998, to January 1, 2004, including (a) any
and

all

records/information/files

related

to

requester;

and

(b)

any

and

all

records/information/files related to requestor being found eligible for supplemental security
income benefits (“SSI”); complete amounts of payouts under SSI; amount owed under SSI; and
determination for eligibility information, including statements, notes, and records of doctors. Id.
Plaintiff indicates that he mailed a second request for the same documents on June 16,
2014, to “information and Records Office, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235-0001.”
ECF No. 1-2. In this request, plaintiff indicated he was “mentally disabled patient” in an
outpatient program at Mule Creek State Prison. Id., p. 3
Plaintiff states that he has not been provided the requested records. He seeks disclosure
of the records and monetary damages. ECF No. 1.
Defendant indicates that plaintiff’s requests were not in accordance with regulations
regarding FOIA and Privacy Act requests submitted to SSA and, as such, plaintiff has not
exhausted his administrative remedies under FOIA or the Privacy Act. Additionally, Defendant
indicates that it has fully complied with its obligations under FOIA and the Privacy Act.
Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Deputy Executive Director of the Office of Privacy and
Disclosure (“OPD”) in the Office of the General Counsel at SSA, avers that as of the date
plaintiff instituted this case, OPD had no record of plaintiff properly filing a FOIA request or
any administrative appeal. ECF No. 10-2, p. 2. After receiving notice of the lawsuit, OPD
inquired with other offices at SSA and learned that the Office of Communication received
1

Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 5552a.

plaintiff’s March 31, 2014, request on or about May 30, 2014. No record of the June 16, 2014,
request was discovered. Id.
Because plaintiff’s March 31, 2014, request sought access to his own records, SSA
processed the request under the Privacy Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 402.15(b). The SSA only
considers the request to be made under FOIA if there are requested records that SSA could not
release under the Privacy Act. Id. SSA could not respond to plaintiff’s first request “for any and
all records about himself from January 1, 1998 to January 1, 2004,” as the request failed to
reasonably describe the records sought. SSA regulations provide that the agency cannot honor
requests for “all records, all information, or similar blanket requests.” See 20 C.F.R. § 401.40(c).
As to plaintiff’s request for SSI information, SSA performed a search of all records that it
reasonably believed may contain information related to plaintiff’s request regarding SSI
information. ECF No. 10-2, p. 2-3. On February 9, 2015, SSA responded to plaintiff’s request
and provided all records the agency located that the agency determined were responsive to
plaintiff’s request regarding SSI information. Id., p. 4.
Standard of Review
A.

Motion to Dismiss
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178
F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). The dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted does not require defendant to establish Abeyond doubt@ that plaintiff can prove no set
of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007). Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 563.

The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, see Revene v. Charles County
Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations,
see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusional factual allegations devoid of
any reference to actual events, see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir.
1979).
B.

Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56(a), which provides:
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will

defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
AThe party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment >may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,= but rather must >set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.=@ Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc.,
346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting former Rule 56(e)). The court
should Aview the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmovant, and draw all
inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness= credibility.@
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court
must, however, also abide by the Aaffirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually
unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.@ Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993), and
citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986), the Supreme Court
explained that in considering a motion for summary judgment, the Ajudge=s function is not
himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial.@ A dispute about a material fact is genuine Aif the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.@ Id. at 248. Thus,
Athe judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or
the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the
evidence presented.@ Id. at 252.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact. No genuine issue of material fact exists if the nonmoving party fails to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of his or her case as to which he or she would have
the burden of proof. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Therefore, on
those issues on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof, it is his or her responsibility
to confront the summary judgment motion with an affidavit or other similar evidence showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Analysis
Under the FOIA, federal agencies are required upon request to promptly make available
records where the request reasonably describes the records requested and is made in accordance
with published rules. See 5 U.S.C. ' 552(a)(3)(A). Records that are properly requested must be
provided in any form or format requested by the person if it is readily reproducible in that form.
See 5 U.S.C. ' 552(a)(3)(B). The purpose of FOIA is to open government agency action to

public scrutiny. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975).
To determine if an agency=s search for responsive materials is adequate, the agency must
demonstrate that it has Aconducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.@ Ethyl Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1247 (4th Cir. 1994). It is not necessary
for the agency to locate Aevery single potentially responsive document.@ Id. The agency
may not rest on an affidavit that simply avers that the search was
conducted in a manner consistent with customary practice and
established procedure. Rather, the affidavit must be reasonably
detailed, setting forth the search terms and the type of search
performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive
materials (if such records exist) were searched so as to give the
requesting party an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the
search.
Id.
To make requests under the FOIA, a citizen must follow the agency's published
regulations regarding procedures to be followed. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A)(ii); Pollack v.
Department of Justice, 49 F.3d 115, 118 (4th Cir. 1995). Before judicial review of compliance
can occur, citizens must exhaust administrative agency procedures. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C);
Oglesby v. U.S. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 65 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also Gasparutti
v. United States, 22 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1116 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“In order to maintain a judicial
action under FOIA, a plaintiff must first request documents from an administrative agency and
if his request for documents is refused must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a
court action.”). Although the Privacy Act does not contain an equivalent constructive
exhaustion provision as FOIA, a plaintiff is nonetheless required to file a properly framed
request under an agency’s regulations. Taylor v. U.S. Treasury Dept. 127 F.3d 470, 476 (5th
Cir. 1998) (dismissing Privacy Act claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies due to
failure of requestor to meet regulatory requirements, including failure to list systems of record

to be searched and address for the systems officer).
In order to properly file an FOIA request by mail, a requester must reasonably describe
the requested record, identify the request as a FOIA request, mark the outside of the envelope
as a FOIA request and mail the request to “The Deputy Executive Director for the Office of
Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
MD 21235.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 402.130, 402.135.
In order to properly file a Privacy Act request by mail, the requester must specify which
systems of records he wishes searched and the records to which he wishes to have access. 20
C.F.R. § 401.40(b). The request must be mailed to the manager of the SSA system of records.
20 C.F.R. § 401.40(c).
Plaintiff failed to submit a proper FOIA or Privacy Act request in that he failed to mail
his requests to the proper SSA office. Plaintiff indicates he sent his first request to the “Office
of the Custodian of Records/Information” and his second request to “information and Records
Office.”

A request under FOIA should have been mailed to the “Office of Public Disclosure.”

A request under the Privacy Act should have been mailed to the appropriate systems manager
for the SSA systems of records plaintiff wished to have searched. Because plaintiff failed to
direct his inquiries to the appropriate office, they were never entered into SSA’s tracking system
and did not make their way to the appropriate office for processing. ECF No. 10-2, p. 2.
Additionally, plaintiff’s requests failed to properly identify the records requested. Under
the SSA’s Privacy Act regulations, plaintiff was required to specify the systems of records to be
searched. Also, under both the Privacy Act and FOIA, plaintiff’s blanket request for “any and
all records” is not proper as it fails to reasonably describe or identify the requested records. See
7

20 C.F.R. § 401.40(c) (SSA will not honor Privacy Act request for “all records...or similar
blanket requests”); 20 C.F.R. § 402.130 (FOIA request must reasonably describe the requested
records).
Accordingly, a separate Order shall be entered dismissing the complaint without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.2

Date: June 11, 2015

_________/s/_____________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2

In light of the dismissal for non-exhaustion, the court will not consider defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s
complaint is now moot given the release of responsive records to plaintiff. The court notes that plaintiff disputes
receiving the records. ECF No. 12.

8