UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARK ALAN LANE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1269 (RJL)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et ai., )
)
~
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(June ~, 2009)
In this civil action brought under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, alleges that the Bureau of Prisons' reliance on inaccurate information in his presentence
investigation report has resulted in adverse decisions regarding his custody. I He seeks
"amendment of the 2001 presentence report and money damages[.]" Compl at 4. Defendants
move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 [Dkt. No. 13]; plaintiff moves for summary judgment
[Dkt. No. 17]. Because BOP inmate records are exempt from the Privacy Act's amendment and
damages provisions, and the Act provides no private right of action against the individually
named defendants, 2 the Court grants defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and denies
plaintiff s unsupported motion for summary judgment.
I Plaintiff is a federal prisoner serving a sentence of 360 months' imprisonment imposed
following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine
and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. United States v. Lane, 52 Fed. Appx. 838 (7th
Cir. 2002).
2 In addition to BOP, plaintiff sues his warden, W.A. Sherrod, Administrator Harold
Watts and Regional Director Michael K. Nalley. But see Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444
F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed the named individual
defendants because no cause of action exists that would entitle appellant to relief from them
under the Privacy Act[.]") (citations omitted).
A court may dismiss a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted if, assuming the alleged facts to be true and drawing all inferences in the
plaintiffs favor, it appears that the plaintiff can prove no facts "consistent with the allegations in
the complaint" to support the claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,563, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). "[T]he pleadings [must] suggest a 'plausible' scenario to 'sho[w] that
the pleader is entitled to relief[.]'" Tooley v. Napolitano, 556 F.3d 836, 839 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
(quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1966).
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). Section 552a(d) allows individuals access to agency records about
themselves and to request the amendment of records "they believe to be inaccurate, irrelevant,
untimely, or incomplete." Doe v. Federal Bureau o/Investigation, 936 F.2d 1346,1350 (D.C.
Cir. 1991). Subsections (g)(1)(A) and (C) authorize civil actions to enforce the amendment and
accuracy requirements. In addition, subsection (g)(4) provides for monetary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees where the agency is shown to have acted intentionally or willfully. See Doe, 936
F.2d at 1350; accord Deters v. United States Parole Commission, 85 F.3d 655,660-61 (D.C. Cir.
1996); Sellers v. Bureau o/Prisons, 959 F.2d 307, 310-12 (D.C. Cir. 1992). An agency may be
liable for "actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure" to
maintain accurate records and "consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the
individual. ... " 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C) and (g)(4)(A).
2
The Privacy Act authorizes law enforcement agencies to exempt "any system of records
within the agency" from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, including subsection(g). 5 U.S.C.
§ 522a m(2). It is established that BOP has exempted its Inmate Central Records System
containing, among other records, presentence investigation reports, from the Privacy Act's
accuracy and amendment requirements (subsections (d) and (e)(5)) and from its damages
provision (subsection (g)). See 28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a)(4); White v. United States Probation Office,
148 F.3d 1124, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) ("Under regulations ... presentence reports
and BOP inmate records systems are exempt from the amendment provisions of the Act");
accord Martinez, 444 F.3d at 624 ("The BOP has exempted its Inmate Central Record System
from the accuracy provisions of the Privacy Act[.]") (citations omitted). Plaintiff therefore fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ramirez v. Dep't of Justice, 594 F.
Supp.2d 58, 65 (D.D.C. 2009) ("Having exempted its records from the substantive provision
regarding the agency's recordkeeping obligations, BOP effectively deprives litigants of a remedy
for any harm caused by the agency's substandard recordkeeping."); Lopez v. Huff, 508 F. Supp.2d
71,77 (D.D.C. 2007) ("To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to have his [presentence
investigation report] amended, such relief is not available because the BOP has properly
exempted its inmate central files, where such documents are kept, from the [Privacy Act's]
amendment requirements.") (citations omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment is denied. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion. ~
RICH . LEON
United States District Judge
3