Williams v. U.S. Dept of Justice et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/27/2016. (rss, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 5/27/2016 (c/m 5/27/2016 rss) (rss, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
LACY LEE WILLIAMS, JR., #0442843
Plaintiff,
v
U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION,
MARY FRANCES RONAN,
DEBRA STEIDEL WALL, Deputy
Archivist of the United States National
Archives and Records Administration,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***

Civil Action No. PWG-16-512

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lacy Lee Williams Jr. an inmate at the Maury Correctional Institution in North Carolina,
is suing Defendants under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 and the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.1 See Compl., ECF No. 1. Williams supplemented his complaint at
my direction. See Order; Suppl., ECF No. 6.
I.

BACKGROUND
I incorporate the background of this case as discussed in my March 18, 2016, Order. In

summary, beginning on April 13, 2014, Williams submitted requests to the Department of Justice
(“Justice”) and to the National Archives and Records Administration (“Archives”) for records

1

The court dismissed Williams’s Privacy Act claims against Defendants Mary Frances
Ronan and Debra Steidel Wall on March 18, 2016. See Order, ECF No. 3. Individual
governmental officials are not properly named as defendants in FOIA lawsuits. See e.g., Skolnick
v. Campbell, 454 F.2d 531, 532 (7th Cir. 1971); Jefferson v. Reno, 123 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.
2000); Cunningham v. O'Neill, 953 F.Supp.2d 267 (D.D.C. 2013). Accordingly, the FOIA claims
against Ronan and Wall will be dismissed by separate order.

concerning his forbearers who were in slavery in the United States. See Compl. 2. Williams
seeks injunctive relief and damages. See id. 4–6. He asks for “paperwork” to enjoin his
continued enslavement and $1 million dollars for each year his relatives suffered as slaves. Id. at
4–5. He also seeks one acre of land for each year his relatives were forced to turn over their
property without due compensation. Id. at 5. Williams’s records requests and the responses he
received are summarized below.
A. Records Request of April 13, 2014, to Justice
On April 13, 2014, Williams requested records concerning his “native American
Indians/Asiatic African aboriginal relatives forced into slavery here in the U.S.A. in the 1400s
until the 1900s.” Compl. 2. He also sought documents pertaining to international human rights.
Additionally, Williams requested “proper citizenship, change of name, social security,
pardon/expungement of criminal records, reperation [sic] forms and etcetera.” Id. Williams’s
request, however, did not provide names or other identifying information to focus the scope of
his request and to enable a reasonable search of records. See Order 1–2.
Williams states the Justice Correspondence Unit of the Civil Rights Division responded
to his FOIA request on May 22, 2014, stating “[r]equest for information/documents is one within
the jurisdiction of the courts or the state. This Department has no authority to take any action in
the matter.”

Suppl. 6–7.2

Williams appealed the determination to Justice’s Office of

Information Policy (OIP). See id. at 7; June 8, 2014, Appeal, Suppl., Ex. H, ECF No. 6-9. By
letter dated September 3, 2014, OIP explained that “[t]he FOIA does not require agencies to
conduct research for you, to analyze data, to answer questions, or to create new records in
response to a FOIA request.” Sept. 3, 2014, Denial, Suppl., Ex. K, ECF No. 6-12; see also

2

Williams did not submit a copy of the May 22, 2014, Justice response.
2

Suppl. 7–8. Further, because each federal agency maintains and processes FOIA requests for its
own records and Williams was requesting historical records, OIP suggested that he contact
Archives. Sept. 3, 2014, Response.

Williams was informed that the OIP decision was

administratively appealable to the Director of the OIP within sixty days. Id.
B. Records Request of July 3, 2014, to Justice
Williams next wrote to Justice, requesting “documents concerning reperations [sic] to
repair the damages and acts done to Lacy Lee Williams Jr. forefathers and mothers, placed in
slavery without due compensation for their labor since the 1400’s until the Emancipation
Proclamation was signed in 1862.” Suppl. 3–4; July 3, 2014, Request, Suppl., Ex. C, ECF No. 64. He asked for forms to collect debts owed to him from the United States Government for the
last 600 years. July 3, 2014, Request.
C. Records Request of July 5, 2014, to Archives
On July 5, 2014, Williams requested from Archives copies of the Declaration of
Independence, laws related to the slave trade, and “any and all documents, original or copies of
Lacy Lee Williams, Jr. forefathers and mothers DNA, names and locations of the plantations
where they were slaves since the 1400’s until 1865.” Suppl. 4; July 5, 2014, Request, Suppl.,
Ex. D, ECF No. 6-5. He also sought documents pertaining to the names of overseers, businesses,
and profits associated with his forebears. July 5, 2014, Request.
On September 30, 2014, Williams received a letter from Mary Frances Ronan, in the
Archival Operations Section of Archives. Sept. 30, 2014, Response, Suppl., Ex. M, ECF No. 614. The letter reads in part:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (RD44356) received in this office on September 25, 2014, requesting copies of “any
or all” unspecified documents relating to the history of slavery, human rights,
citizenship, and your personal relatives going back to the 1400s.

3

The Freedom of Information Act (U.S.C. 552) as amended does not obligate a
Federal Agency to perform general research of the type you requested. Requests
must be reasonably specific in nature, not requiring extensive researching and
identification of documents which may or may not pertain to your subject. The
overwhelming proportion of records in our custody are [sic] already open and
available for research use, including records pertaining to genealogy. We can
provide information about the records, make them available for use in our
research rooms, and provide specific documents for a fee. We are not staffed to
provide general research service.
...
Our inability to do substantive research for you does not constitute a denial for the
purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. If you consider this an adverse
response, you may appeal by writing within 35 days of receipt of this letter to the
Deputy Archivist (ND), National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD 20740-6001, and explain why you think our search does not
meet the requirements of the FOIA.
Id. Williams appealed. See Dec. 22, 2015, Response, Suppl., Ex. P, ECF 6-17 (noting the letter
of Williams’s appeal was dated October 19, 2014).
On December 22, 2015, Deputy Archivist Debra Steidel Wall responded to Williams’s
appeal, affirming Ronan’s determination.
Ms. Ronan was correct when she informed you that the FOIA does not obligate an
agency to conduct research in its holdings. The courts have determined agencies
are not required to conduct wide-ranging, “unreasonably burdensome” searches
for records. Please note that all of the records that might be relevant to your
research are open and available in our facilities and do not require you to submit a
FOIA request in order to gain access to them.
Id. The Deputy Archivist’s response informed Williams if he was unable to travel to the
Archives facility in College Park, Maryland, there was an option available for hiring a
professional researcher and paying for duplication of records. Id. The response also informed
him that the Office of Government Services provides mediation services to resolve disputes
between FOIA requesters and agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation and provided

4

contact information. Id.3 Lastly, the response informed Williams that he had exhausted his
administrative remedies, and judicial review was available. Id.
D. Records Request of July 14, 2014, to Justice
Williams requested documents concerning his “African aboriginal forefathers and
mothers giving up their independence and or [sic] freedom to become slaves here in the United
States of America, dated from the 1400’s to the present time.” July 14, 2014, Request, Suppl.,
Ex. E, ECF No. 6-6. He also requested documents including, but not limited to “change of name
and social security identification number forms, pardon and expungement of criminal records
forms, and proper citizenship forms.” Id. Further, he requested documents concerning due
process and treaties on illegal immigrants. Id. Williams did not provide additional information
to focus the scope of his request.
E. Records Request of September 24, 2014, to Justice
Williams resumed his requests for Justice records on September 24, 2014, when he wrote
to the Justice Division of Environmental and Natural Resources asking for:
400 acres of land to build on, proper citizenship forms, change of name and
social security number forms, pardons and expungement of criminal records
forms, and the proper application forms so that Mr. Lacy Lee Williams, Jr.
can receive his overdue reperations [sic], to repair and restore, the damages,
malicious and sadism acts done to his forefathers and mothers as slaves here
in the U.S.A.
Sept. 24, 2014, Request, Suppl., Ex. F, ECF No. 6-7.
F. Records Request of September 28, 2014, to Justice
Williams repeated his September 24, 2014, request for assistance to obtain 400 acres of
land and necessary forms to obtain 400 acres of land and necessary in letters written to various
Justice offices or bureaus, including the Office of Federal Detention Trustee, the Federal Bureau
3

Williams does not indicate whether he has used this service.
5

of Prison, Immigration Review, Office of the Pardon Attorney, the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, the Civil Rights Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sept. 28, 2014,
Request, Suppl., Ex. G, ECF No. 6-8; see also Suppl. 6. Curiously, Williams specified in each of
these letters that his request was not made under the FOIA or Privacy Act. Id.
Williams states he received no response to his requests, save one from the Antitrust
Division, an office to which he had not submitted his request. Id. at 17. The Antitrust Division
stated that the request was referred to the Justice components designated in his requests or most
likely to maintain the records sought. Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards
1. Preliminary Screening
Williams filed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, which permits an indigent litigant
to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the filing fee. To protect against
possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). The Court is mindful of its obligation to construe liberally the pleadings of pro
se litigants such as Williams. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a
pro se complaint, a plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Id. at 93–94 (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). Nonetheless, liberal construction
does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth
a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for City of
Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d

6

1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not “conjure up questions never squarely
presented”).
2. Freedom of Information Act
FOIA “provides a mechanism for citizens to obtain documents from federal agencies, and
grants federal district courts jurisdiction to review agency compliance with citizens’ requests.”
Shortall v. Baltimore Dist. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. WMN-14-3904, 2015 WL
3545259, at *3 (D. Md. June 4, 2015) (quoting Reaves v. Jewell, Civ. No. DKC-14-2245, 2014
WL 6698717, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014)). Subject to certain statutory exemptions not at issue
here, FOIA requires that federal agencies shall “upon any request for records which
. . . reasonably describe such records . . . make the records promptly available to any person.” 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
Under FOIA, an agency must “provide information to the public on request if the request
‘reasonably describes’ the record sought and is made in accordance with published agency rules
for making requests.” Ethyl Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 25 F.3d 1241, 1245 (quoting 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(3)). “[I]t is the requestor’s responsibility to frame requests with sufficient particularity
to ensure the searches are not unreasonably burdensome, and to enable the searching agency to
determine precisely what records are being requested.” Assassination Archives & Research Ctr.
v. CIA, 720 F. Supp. 217, 219 (D.D.C. 1989) (internal citations omitted). Even where a request
sufficiently describes the records sought, an agency is not required to comply with a request “so
broad as to impose an unreasonable burden upon the agency.”

See Am. Fed'n of Gov't

Employees, Local 2782 v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
A federal court only has jurisdiction to devise a remedy upon a showing that the agency
has improperly withheld agency records. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the

7

Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980). An agency acts improperly “when a record is withheld outside
one of the enumerated FOIA exceptions.” Kim v. Internal Revenue Service, No. WMN-99-2096,
1999 WL 1424998, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 28, 1999) (quoting Bartlett v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Fed.
Bureau of Investigation, 867 F. Supp. 314, 315 (E.D. Pa. 1994)). “An agency withholds records
only when it has custody over the documents and does not release them,” id., and “has no duty to
create records upon a FOIA request,” id.; see also Zemansky v. U.S. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 574 (9th
Cir. 1985) (holding agency had no duty under FOIA to create documents).
A request must be sufficiently specific to enable a government employee familiar with
the subject area to locate the records with reasonable effort. See James Madison Project v. CIA,
No. GBL-08-1323, 2009 WL 2777961, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 2009). An agency has not
improperly withheld information under FOIA if the agency conducted a “search reasonably
calculated to uncover all relevant documents” but has failed to provide the requester every single
potentially responsive document that exists. See Ethyl Corp., 25 F.3d at 1246 (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir.
1984)).
FOIA requesters may request a waiver of fees. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A). Under the
FOIA, fee waivers are limited to situations in which a requester can show that the disclosure of
the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to
public understanding of the operations and activities of the government and is not primarily in
the commercial interest of the requester. Id. at § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). Requests for fee waivers
from individuals who are seeking records pertaining to themselves usually do not meet this
standard because such disclosures usually benefit the individual requester rather than increase the
public’s understanding of government operations and activities. A requester’s inability to pay

8

fees alone is not a legal basis for granting a fee waiver. See id.

Williams does not indicate

whether he sought a fee waiver from either federal agency defendant, although he indicates he
sent a copy of his prisoner trust fund statement to Archives and requested documents free of
charge. See Jan. 9, 2016, Letter, Suppl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 6-18.
“Monetary damages are not available under FOIA.” Moore v. U.S. No. WDQ-13-2353,
2014 WL 2575765, at *3 (D. Md. June 6, 2014) (citing Smith v. Commc'ns Works of Am., No.
AW-12-0027, 2012 WL 6727150, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 26, 2012) aff'd sub nom. Smith v. EEOC,
517 F. App’x 159 (4th Cir. 2013)); see also § 552(a)(4)(B); Ross v. United States, 460 F. Supp.
2d 139, 151 (D.D.C. 2006).
3. Privacy Act
The Privacy Act requires federal agencies to maintain records used in making
determinations “with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably
necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination” about the individual. 5
U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). “Unlike FOIA, the Privacy Act’s primary purpose is not disclosure. Rather,
‘the main purpose of the Privacy Act’s disclosure requirement is to allow individuals on whom
information is being compiled and retrieved the opportunity to review the information and
request that the agency correct any inaccuracies.’”). Blazy v. Tenet, 194 F.3d 90, 96 (D.C. Cir
1999) (quoting Henke v. United States Dep't of Commerce, 83 F.3d 1453, 1456–57 (D.C. Cir.
1996)).
Where a violation of the Privacy Act concerns an agency’s refusal of an individual’s
request for access to his or her own record, the remedy is injunctive relief.
§§ 552a(d)(1), 552a(g)(1)(B), & 552a(g)(3).

5 U.S.C.

For all other violations, including a wrongful

9

refusal of an individual’s request to amend a record, damages may be available where an
individual actually is harmed by the violation. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a (g)(1)(C)–(D) & 552a(g)(4)(A).
B. Analysis
The court assumes for the purpose of this decision that Williams has exhausted his
administrative appeals. Pollack v. Dep't of Justice, 49 F.3d 115, 118 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating that
to file suit under the FOIA, a requester must first exhaust all administrative remedies).
In this case, neither the Department of Justice nor the National Archives and Records
Administration withheld records from Williams. No records were withheld on the basis of
claimed statutory exemptions.

Instead, Williams’s requests were deemed too broad and

unspecific to permit a records search as contemplated under FOIA. “FOIA was not intended to
reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters.” Assassination
Archives, 720 F. Supp. at 219. “[I]t is the requester’s responsibility to frame requests with
sufficient particularity to ensure that searches are not unreasonably burdensome, and to enable
the searching agency to determine precisely what records are being requested.” Id. (citing
Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
FOIA does not provide individuals with the right to demand “an all-encompassing fishing
expedition” of files in every office within every federal law enforcement agency “at taxpayer
expense.” Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 105 (D.D.C. 2002); see also Mason v. Callaway, 554
F. 2d 129, 131 (4th Cir. 1977) (request for all documents “pertaining to the atrocities committed
against plaintiffs . . . , including, but not limited to, the files of (various government offices) . . .
typifies the lack of specificity that Congress sought to preclude in the requirement of 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(3) that records sought be reasonably described” (first alteration in original)). The
“linchpin inquiry is whether the agency is able to determine ‘precisely what records [are] being

10

requested.’” Yeager, 678 F.2d at 326 (citation omitted). Here, Williams submitted sweeping
requests for genealogical and other historical information covering a period of over 600 years
with no other identifying details. Williams made no attempt to narrow the range of his request
after request requirements were explained to him. Williams was not provided records because
the requests were insufficiently specific to enable a search under the parameters of FOIA or the
Privacy Act.
Absent withholding of documents after a FOIA request that is sufficiently specific to
enable location of records, there is no violation of the statute. Neither may Williams seek
damages and injunctive relief under FOIA to create documents responsive to his requests.4
Accordingly, Williams’s FOIA claims against the Defendants will be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Williams’s Privacy Act claims are equally problematic. His broad request for ancestral
records was submitted without detail. No documents were withheld from him as the request was
insufficiently framed to enable a responsive search of agency records. Williams’s claims under
the Privacy Act will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
III.

CONCLUSION

4

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a federal
constitutional right or a right secured by federal law. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140
(1979). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 establishes a cause of action against any “person” who, acting under
color of state law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. However, § 1983 “‘is not itself a
source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights
elsewhere conferred.’ ” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker, 443 U.S. at
144 n.3). Plaintiff does not claim abridgement of a constitutional right. His conclusory allusions
to racism and bias in handling his requests, see Jan. 9, 2016, Letter, are unsubstantiated in the
record.
11

For these reasons, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
Dated: May 27, 2016

/S/
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge

12