UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
David Calhoun, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1663 (RBW)
)
Department of Justice, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff David Calhoun timely filed a motion to alter or amend the March 15, 2010 Order
dismissing the complaint. The motion will be denied.
The primary reasons for altering or amending a judgment are an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Calhoun argues that the Court needs to correct a clear error.
Calhoun’s pro se complaint against the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), presented claims
under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2006), and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
The FOIA claim was dismissed because Calhoun had never presented a FOIA request to the DOJ
and therefore had not exhausted his administrative remedies under the FOIA before filing the
lawsuit, and his other claims were dismissed because he had not complied with the exhaustion
requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006). See
Calhoun v. Dep’t of Justice, __ F. Supp. 2d __ , 2010 WL 893680 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2010).
Calhoun argues that the Court erred in fact when it assumed that the plaintiff’s presentence
investigation report (“PSR”) was a DOJ agency record. He contends that a PSR is more properly
considered a record of the U.S. Probation Office.
Calhoun’s argument is immaterial to the outcome of this litigation.1 He did not exhaust
the required administrative remedies before filing his civil suit, and therefore cannot maintain his
suit, regardless of whether or not the record sought is a DOJ agency record.2 Calhoun has not
shown that there is a need to correct a clear error. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment [26] is DENIED.
/s/
REGGIE B. WALTON
Date: April 14, 2010 United States District Judge
1
It is also factually incorrect, as the Court did not make the assumption upon which
Calhoun’s argument is premised.
2
Taken to its logical conclusion, Calhoun’s argument that the PSR is not a DOJ agency
record provides one more reason to dismiss his FOIA claim against the DOJ.
2