641 F. Supp. 1141 (1986)
Michael Alan CROOKER, Plaintiff,
Civ. A. No. 86-0810.
Michael Alan CROOKER, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 86-0810.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
July 31, 1986.*1142 Michael Alan Crooker, pro se.
Patricia D. Carter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.
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.[1]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 *1143 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) ("interagency 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.[2] 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).
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
*1144
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 Fire-arms 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 1
B. UNREPORTED CASES: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION
1) Crooker v. Drug Drug Enforcement Crooker sought a copy of the "Clandestine Laboratory Crooker filed a motion to
Enforcement Agency (DEA) Guide" in November, 1985. DEA acknowledged dismiss two weeks after
Agency 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) Crooker v. United U.S. Parole Commission Crooker sought records maintained under his name Defendant's motion to
States Parole including those surrounding his National Parole dismiss was granted in
Commission, C.A. Appeal in August, 1985. The request was acknowledged that no documents had
No. 86-0352 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 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) and § 552(b)(5).
3) Crooker v. Federal Federal Bureau of Investigations Crooker requested an updated copy of the FBI index J. Hogan granted unopposed
Bureau of Investigation, (FBI) in December, 1985. motion to dismiss
C.A. June 30, 1986.
No. 86-0516
4) Crooker v. Federal Federal Bureau of In December, 1985, Crooker requested statistical The case is pending before
Bureau of Prisons 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) Crooker v. United U.S. Marshals Service Crooker requested records maintained under his Case before the Court;
States Marshals name in January, 1986 J. Hogan granted unopposed
Service C.A. No. motion to dismiss
86-0810
6) Crooker v. Federal Federal Bureau of Crooker requested agency records concerning contracts The case is pending before
Bureau of Prisons 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.
*1145
7) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker requested records surrounding his arrest Judge Oberdorfer dismissed
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on explosive charges, along with other unnamed the suit as being
and Firearms (BATF) records in October 1984. In December 1984, frivolous pursuant to 28
C.A. No. 85-1793 BATF denied Crooker's request. Crooker appealed U.S.C. § 1915(d) in that
and BATF denied the appeal in January 1985. it was identical to the
Crooker filed suit. complaint filed against
BATF in Civil Action
No. 85-0615
8) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker requested documents maintained under his The district court granted
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms name by BATF. Crooker's request was denied in defendant's motion
and Firearms (BATF) reliance to Exception 7(A), in that there was an for summary judgment
C.A. No. 85-0615 ongoing investigation and all the requested documents and dismissed the case.
Ct.App. No. 85-5930 were investigatory records, the release of On appeal the court vacated
which would interfere with the investigation the summary judgment
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) Crooker v. United U.S. Secret Service Crooker sought records maintained under his name Judge Oberdorfer granted
States Secret Service compiled since January 1, 1984. Crooker's appeal defendant's motion
Civ.A. No. from the denial of his request was denied. for summary judgment
85-1967 Crooker filed suit. The Secret Service had released and ruled that the failure
some documents but withheld other documents to disclose the requested
invoking exemptions under 5 U.S.C. information was
§ 552(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), and warranted under the
(b)(7)(E). FOIA exemptions.
10) Crooker v. United U.S. Parole Commission In September 1984, Crooker requested records Crooker's agency appeal
States Parole surrounding his parole revocation. Crooker's suit was not denied, and upon
Commission, alleged that his appeal of the denial of his request motion, defendant
Civ.A. No. 85-2248 was denied. was granted a stay
Ct.App. No. pending the agency's decision
86-5153 concerning
Crooker's appeal. On
appeal the Parole Commission
affirmed the decision
to withhold certain
information pursuant to
5 U.S.C. § 552(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
*1146
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) Crooker v. United U.S. Postal Service Crooker requested certain criminal records concerning Judge Oberdorfer granted
States Postal Service himself. The agency informed Crooker that the defendant's motion
C.A. No. 85-2427 search and duplication costs would have to be for summary judgment
paid. Crooker's request for a waiver of the fee and dismissed the
was denied. Crooker's agency appeal regarding suit 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) Crooker v. Central Central Intelligence Crooker sought agency records concerning himself. Judge Oberdorfer granted
Intelligence Agency (CIA) After a thorough search, the CIA determined that defendant's motion
Agency C.A. No. the documents in their possession were exempt for summary judgment,
85-2437 from disclosure under FOIA exceptions (b)(3) and which Crooker never opposed,
(b)(5). The remaining documents requested by and dismissed the
Crooker originated in other agencies and the CIA case. In a letter dated
referred Crooker's request to those agencies. two days before Judge
Segregable portions of the CIA documents were Oberdorfer's decision,
released to Crooker. Crooker requested dismissal
of his suit.
13) Crooker v. United U.S. Marshals Service Crooker sought records maintained by the agency Judge Oberdorfer granted
States Marshals under his name including records regarding his arrest defendant's motion
Service C.A. No. and treatment by the U.S. Marshals Service for summary judgment
85-2599 and all records related to his subsequent tort and 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) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker requested records pertaining to a substance Judge Oberdorfer granted
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms called thermite. He also requested a fee defendant's motion
and Firearms (BATF) waiver which was denied. Crooker's appeal regarding for summary judgment
C.A. No. 85-2600 the fee waiver was also denied. and dismissed the case.
Ct. Appeals No. Crooker was ordered on
86-5044 April 7, 1986, to show
cause why his appeal
should not be dismissed
since his docketing statement
has not been filed.
15) Crooker v. Civil Department of Justice Crooker sought copies of all records maintained Crooker consented to defendant's
Rights Division of (DOJ) under his name. The DOJ's response requesting motion to dismiss,
the Department Crooker to satisfy the provisions of the Privacy pending further administrative
of Justice C.A. Act so that his request could be processed was returned processing
No. 85-3787 by the U.S. Postal Service marked "Unclaimed, of his FOIA request.
Returned to Sender". The case was dismissed
without prejudice.
16) Crooker v. Drug Drug Enforcement Administration Crooker sought records maintained under his Judge Green ruled that
Enforcement 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
No. 83-1718 Crooker then filed suit. searches for the requested
(D.D.C.1984) records, 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.
*1147 17) Crooker v. Federal Federal Bureau of Crooker sought a copy of his presentence report Judge Green ruled that Bureau of Prisons 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 Crooker v. Office of the Pardon applied to the case Ct. of Appeals Attorney, 614 F.2d (2nd Cir.1980) and in and granted defendant's No. 84-5288 Crooker v. U.S. Parole Commission, 730 F.2d 1 motion to dismiss. On (D.C.Cir. Jan. 15, (1st Cir.1984); Crooker was unsuccessful in both appeal the court dismissed 1986) attempts. the case as being moot in that Crooker had already received the presentence report as the result of his suit filed against the Parole Commission. See 760 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1985). 18) Crooker v. Internal Internal Revenue Service Crooker sought copies of law enforcement records The District Court granted Revenue Service (IRS) maintained under his name and all records surrounding defendant's motion C.A. No. 83-2506 the investigation of his tax returns for for summary judgment Ct.App. No. the three preceding years. IRS released 14 documents and ruled that the requested 84-5892 in full and 19 in part. Crooker filed suit to documents were compel the release of the remaining documents. exempt from disclosure Thereafter, IRS released 8 additional documents pursuant to FOIA exemptions with portions deleted. Six of the eight documents (b)(2), (b)(3), had been released in part previously. and (b)(7)(C). Crooker's motion for attorney's 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) Crooker v. Standish Office of the Pardon Crooker requested the disclosure of documents Crooker's petition was C.A. No. 80-0611 Attorney U.S. Dept. of which were to be relied upon in connection with dismissed noting that 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) Crooker v. Office Office of the Deputy Crooker sought records maintained under his name Judge Green granted of the Deputy Attorney Attorney General by DAG. DAG notified Crooker that no records summary judgment for General, et (DAG) U.S. Dept. of existed at DAG, but that records located in the office the defendant, noting al., C.A. No. 80-1404 Justice of the Associate Attorney General could be that no records had been 1404 obtained upon payment of the copying fee of withheld and that $13.90. Crooker's request for a fee waiver was Crooker was not entitled denied. to a fee waiver for the records maintained in the Office of the Associate Attorney General. 21) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker sought records that had surfaced during The documents that were of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms his suit filed in Massachusetts against the Department subjected to the stipulated and Firearms, (BATF), U.S. Dept. of of Justice. The bulk of the records had dismissal were barred et al., C.A. No. Treasury been the subject of a stipulated dismissal with from the suit being that 80-1405 prejudice in Crooker v. Department of Treasury the previous dismissal and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, was a final judgment. C.A. No. 79-2008, but six documents were released The deleted portions leased to Crooker in deleted form. Two additional were found to be exempt documents could not be located. pursuant to FOIA exemption (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.
*1148 22) Crooker v. United U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Crooker requested copies of photographs of agency Judge Hart dismissed States Dept. of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco employees from BATF. Following the denial of the suit noting that Treasury C.A. No. and Firearms his administrative appeal, Crooker filed suit. Crooker was not entitled 80-1406 (BATF) to photographs of Treasury employees. 23) Crooker v. Federal Federal Bureau of Investigation Crooker requested records maintained under his Judge Hart dismissed Bureau of Investigations, (FBI), U.S. name from FBI field offices in Boston and New the suit noting that et Dept. of Justice Haven, Connecticut. The FBI requested a copying Crooker could pay $9.40. al., C.A. No. 80-1408 fee of $9.40. Crooker refused to pay. 1407 24) Crooker v. Office Office of the Solicitor Crooker requested copies of all documents maintained Judge Hart dismissed of the Solicitor General, U.S. Dept. of under his name in connection with 6 specific the suit without General, et al., Justice cases in which adverse judgments were entered prejudice to allow C.A.A. No. 80-1408 against the United States. Crooker to amend his request for documents by setting forth the names and numbers of the cases. 25) Crooker v. United United States Bureau Crooker sought copies of four administrative remedy Judge Hart dismissed States Bureau of of Prisons, U.S. Dept. abstracts from the Bureau of Prisons. The the suit under 28 U.S.C. Prisons, et al., 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) Crooker v. United U.S. Dept. of Justice Crooker requested documents maintained under his Crooker's motion for attorney's States Department (DOJ), Civil Division name from the Civil Division and the FBI. Some fees in his action of Justice, et al., DOJ, Criminal Division of the requested documents were withheld and against the Civil Division Civ.A. No. 78-1820 DOJ, Identification Division Crooker filed an administrative appeal. Having received of the DOJ and Ct.App. No. of the Federal no response on his appeal. Crooker filed the Identification Division 80-1005 Bureau of Investigation suit. All documents relevant to Crooker's request of the FBI was (FBI), Los Angeles were released and Crooker did not contest any exemptions granted, but denied in Field Office of the which were asserted. Crooker moved for regard to the Criminal FBI. Additional agencies attorney's fees, noting that it took 13 months for Division of the DOJ and involved in his FOIA request to be completed. the Los Angeles Field processing the FOIA Office of the FBI. However, request: Executive Office the award was limited for the United to $38.75 since States Attorney, U.S. Crooker had no overhead Marshals Service, and and was being supported the Drug Enforcement at the public expense. Administration (DEA). Crooker's motion to 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 1) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco see 670 F.2d 1051 Rehearing granted: see of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 670 F.2d 1051 and Firearms (BATF) Civ.A. No. 79-2560 635 F.2d 887 (D.C.Cir.1980) 1A) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker sought a copy of the BATF manual entitled The District Court granted of Alcohol, and Firearms "Surveillance of Premises, Vehicles and Persons the Government's motion and Firearms (BATF) New Agent Training." BATF originally denied for summary judgment Civ.A. No. Crooker's request in its entirety, but deciding that the 79-2560 670 F.2d following an administrative appeal, the Director of material was protected 1051 BATF released portions of the manual except for from disclosure under (D.C.Cir.1981) the portions which "would benefit those attempt- Exemption 2. On appeal
*1149 ing to violate the law and avoid detection." Id. at the Court decided without 1053-54. Crooker filed a FOIA suit for the release argument that the of the entire manual. withheld 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 en banc. 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) Crooker v. United U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Crooker submitted a FOIA request for the BATF The District Court granted States Department Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco manual entitled "Conspiracy" on September 26, Crooker's Motion to of Treasury and Firearms 1978. The BATF did not reply until January 15, dismiss but denied his Civ.A. No. 80-0081 (BATF) 1979, when it informed Crooker that his request motion for attorney's 663 F.2d 140 was under review. In March 1979 BATF determined fees and costs, finding (D.C.Cir.1980) that the manual could be released but a that Crooker had not copy of the ruling was not sent to Crooker. substantially prevailed in Crooker requested the manual again in April 1979 his suit. On appeal the and August 1979 but received no response. Court ruled that Crooker Crooker filed suit in January 1980. The Agency had substantially prevailed sent the manual to Crooker in February 1980. but remanded the case for further determination whether Crooker was entitled to pro se attorney's fees. 3) Crooker v. United State Department Crooker made a FOIA request to the State Department Judge Green ruled that States Department for FBI files maintained under his name. the State Department of State, C.A. No. After receiving no response, Crooker filed suit on was not required to release 78-1867 October 6, 1978. On October 5, 1978, the State the requested documents (D.D.C.1979) 498 Department notified Crooker that his request had since the FBI had F.Supp. 210. Affirmed been referred to the FBI as the result of his earlier already released them. in 628 January 1977 request and that the documents Judge Green denied F.2d 9 had been released to him by the FBI on April 17, Crooker's motion for (D.C.Cir.1980) 1977. summary judgment. His application for attorney's fees was denied since Crooker had not substantially prevailed in his suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. 4) Crooker v. Civil Civil Division of the Crooker requested various documents pertaining to Since all of the records, Division of the U.S. Department of himself. files and documents requested United States Department Justice had been produced, of Justice the action had become C.A. No. 83-2350, moot and the case 577 F.Supp. was dismissed. 1212 (D.D.C.1983) 5) Crooker v. Central Central Intelligence Crooker requested records concerning himself and Dismissed on the Intelligence Agency (CIA) records concerning the testing of the toxin, ricin. grounds that Crooker Agency 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) Crooker v. United U.S. Marshals Service Crooker requested any records maintained under Since the Marshals Service States Marshals his name. was searching for Service C.A. No. Crooker's records and 83-1648, 577 had notified Crooker that F.Supp. 1217 his request would be (D.D.C.1983) complied with, but that Ct.App. No. 83-2205 it was delayed by a backlog of requests, and since Crooker had failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies,
*1150 the case was dismissed. Crooker's appeal was dismissed also. 7) Crooker v. United U.S. Secret Service Crooker requested all documents, photos, files or Since the agency was States Secret Service, records that were maintained under his name. willing to comply with C.A. No. 83-2101, The Secret Service notified Crooker that they the request and since 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 would be processed. Crooker did not pay the fee lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the agency did not process his request. and the case was, therefore, dismissed. Crooker's appeal was dismissed also. 8) Crooker v. Department Department of the Army Crooker requested documents surrounding the testing The denial of the fee of the of the toxin, ricin, which allegedly was performed waiver was appropriate Army C.A. No. by the Department of the Army for Massachusetts since furnishing the information 83-2349, 577 law enforcement agencies. The Army would not primarily F.Supp. 1220 requested payment before the materials would be benefit the general (D.D.C.1983) processed since Crooker had outstanding payments public. Since Crooker Ct.App. No. 84-5089 for previous FOIA requests with the Bureau of indicated that he would Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Crooker requested not pay for the costs incurred a waiver of fees which was denied. in processing his FOIA request, the Army had the right to demand payment prior to processing the information. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the case was dismissed. Crooker's appeal was dismissed as being frivolous. 9) Crooker v. Bureau Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Crooker sought any records maintained under his The court determined of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms name and for an updated copy of his Treasury that since the information and Firearms (BATF) Enforcement Communications System (TECS) record sought was not indexed C.A. No. 83-1716, printout. BATF informed Crooker that no under the name of 577 F. Supp. 1213 new entries had been made since his previous the requestor, it did not (D.D.C.1983) 1982 request. Crooker repeated his request and fall under the Privacy Ct.App. No. 83-2203 asked that the search fees and copying costs requested Act. Thus, Crooker was by the BATF be waived. Crooker also not entitled to obtain the asked the agency to look into the records of Stephen copies free of charge. 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) Crooker v. Federal Federal Bureau of Crooker sought any photos, files or records maintained Defendant's motion to Bureau of Prisons Prisons, United States under his name. The Bureau of Prisons replied dismiss was granted C.A. No. 83-2505, Department of Justice 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) the request had to be transferred to the with Crooker's request Ct.App. No. 84-5131 Northeast Regional Office. When Crooker did not and since Crooker had receive the records immediately he filed suit. The not exhausted his administrative delay in processing Crooker's request was caused remedies in regard by problems in locating the records and due to a to the deleted portions. backlog of requests, but Crooker finally received 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 pro se for attorney's fees attorney's fees. was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
*1151
D. REPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS
CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION
1) Crooker v. Office Office of Pardon Attorney, Crooker sought to review the records connected Disclosure of the Deputy
of the Pardon Attorney Department of with this petition for executive clemency filed with Attorney General's memorandum
U.S. Justice the office of the Pardon Attorney. Crooker acted to the President
Department of pro se. was denied; the
Justice 614 F.2d case was remanded for
825 (2d Cir.1980) further proceedings to
C.A. No. 79-2111 determine 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) Crooker v. United Motion to vacate sentence on grounds that evidence District court's determination
States 620 F.2d of oral threats made by Crooker to probation that the evidence
313 (1st Cir.1980) officer was inadmissible under the doctrine of was admissible since the
Cert. denied 449 collateral estoppel: Crooker had been acquitted in United States was not a
U.S. 857 (1980) the Massachusetts Superior Court of charges involving party in the state proceedings
C.A. No. 80-1095 the oral threats (NOT FOIA). was affirmed.
3) Crooker v. United Department of Justice Crooker made a written request for a copy of any The District Court ruled
States Department "charging manuals, rules and guidelines used by that Crooker was not entitled
of Justice, 632 the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of to attorney's fees
F.2d 916 (1st Cir. Massachusetts and/or the manner in which prosecutorial since he acted pro se
1980) C.A. No. discretion will be exercised," on April 19, and he had not "substantially
80-1109 1979. On May 22, 1979, Crooker filed suit to prevailed" in his
compel disclosure. The documents were released suit. On appeal the
during the course of litigation and Crooker requested court ruled that Crooker
dismissal and attorney's fees. had "substantially prevailed"
in his suit for
disclosure of the documents,
but that pro se
attorney's fees were not
authorized under FOIA.
4) Crooker v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Crooker filed suit against IRS under FOIA for the The District Court denied
Department of (IRS) release of documents relating to an investigation Crooker's claim for attorney's
the Treasury 634 of his 1979 income tax return. One month after fees, despite the
F.2d 48 (2nd Crooker filed suit, IRS released the requested documents. fact that he had substantially
Cir.1980) C.A. No. Crooker then sought attorney's fees and prevailed in his
80-2087 costs. suit, because Crooker
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." Id. at 49.
5) Crooker v. United U.S. Parole Commission, Crooker filed suit under FOIA seeking release of The District Court held
States Parole U.S. Department his pre-sentence report and drug detoxification that the Parole Commission
Commission, 730 of Justice records. had properly withheld
F.2d 1 (1st the presentence report
Cir.1984), 105 and medical records,
S.Ct. 317. Cert. but ordered the Commission
granted, judgment to furnish Crooker
vacated and remanded. with a summary of medical
760 records pursuant to
F.2d 1 (1st the Parole Act. The Appeals
Cir.1985) C.A. No. Court affirmed
83-1687 that the presentence report
was not subject to
disclosure under FOIA,
*1152 but remanded for determination whether more medical records could be released without disclosing the source of information. This decision was vacated and remanded in 105 S. Ct. 317. On remand in 760 F.2d 1 the court ordered the release of the presentence report. 6) Crooker v. United U.S. Parole Commission, Crooker sought attorney's fees under FOIA based Attorney's fees were States Parole U.S. Department on the Court's previous decisions that the Parole awarded for work done Commission, 776 of Justice Commission must furnish Crooker with copies of to secure the release of F.2d 366 (1st his presentence report, 760 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1985), the presentence report Cir.1985) C.A. No. and certain medical records, 730 F.2d 1 (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) Crooker v. United U.S. Department of Crooker, along with another inmate of the Federal Summary judgment was States Department Justice, Bureau of Correctional Institute (FCI) Danbury, Connecticut, granted for the defendants of Justice 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 (D.Conn.1980) C.A. routinely and randomly monitoring prisoners' personal investigate potential No. 80-0146 and legal telephone calls. criminal violations 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. UNREPORTED CASES: FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS CASE AGENCY RECORD SOUGHT/SUBSTANCE OF SUIT DISPOSITION 1) Crooker v. Boston Federal Bureau of Investigation Crooker sought documents pertaining to himself. The FOIA exemptions Field Office of Investigation, (FBI), DOJ Portions of the documents were released and the were upheld and summary et al., remainder were withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions. judgment was granted C.A. No. 78-608 for defendants. (1st Cir.) 2) Crooker v. Bureau Boston Field Office of Crooker sought documents pertaining to himself. The FOIA exemptions of Investigation the FBI, DOJ The documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA were upheld and summary and the Department exemptions. Crooker requested the documents a judgment was granted of Justice, second time and when his request was denied for defendants. C.A. No. B-79-190 again he filed suit. (2nd Cir.) 3) Crooker v. Department Miami Field Office of Crooker sought records pertaining to himself. The The FOIA exemptions of Justice the FBI, DOJ request also sought information about a third party were upheld and summary C.A. No. B-79-191 which was forwarded to the New York Office. judgment was granted (2nd Cir.) The records were withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions. for defendants. 4) Crooker v. Department FBI, DOJ Crooker sought the FBI's manual on investigative The manual was released of Justice instructions. during litigation and the C.A. No. B-79-299 case was dismissed. (2nd Cir.) 5) Crooker v. Department FBI, DOJ Crooker sought records pertaining to himself in The exemptions were upheld of Justice connection with his convictions for mail fraud. and summary judgment C.A. No. D-79-346 The documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA was granted for (2nd Cir.) exemptions. defendants. 6) Crooker v. Los FBI, DOJ Crooker sought records pertaining to himself. The case was dismissed Angeles Field Office for improper venue. of the FBI C.A. No. B-80-24
*1153 F. 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 Service
2) 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
NOTES
[1] 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.
[2] 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).
[*] Number of cases includes only those cases contained in the charts and does not include the cases requested from the First and Second Circuits.