Jarvis v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.

Citation: 310 F. Supp. 3d 79Docket: Civ. No. 17–1806 (EGS)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; April 24, 2018; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Derek N. Jarvis has initiated a lawsuit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking access to all documents related to himself and Shirley J. Pittman, including phone records, emails, and letters. After submitting his initial request on November 22, 2016, and a follow-up request three months later due to HUD's lack of response, Jarvis filed a civil action on August 28, 2017. The court is currently considering HUD's Motion for Summary Judgment, which has been granted. 

In FOIA cases, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view facts favorably for the non-moving party, and an agency must demonstrate it has adequately fulfilled its FOIA obligations to warrant summary judgment. The court conducts a de novo review and can base its decision on the agency's affidavits, which must be detailed and non-conclusory, enjoying a presumption of good faith that cannot be easily challenged.

HUD contends it had no duty to search for or release records related to the FOIA requests dated November 22, 2016, and February 16, 2017, as it claims not to have received these requests. Deborah R. Snowden, Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, outlines HUD’s FOIA request processing procedures, noting that all requests are entered into the FOIA Management System (FMS) upon receipt, assigned a control number, and acknowledged within 24 hours. All requests are routed to the FOIA Branch for processing, regardless of the originating office. Upon receiving the plaintiff's complaint, HUD conducted multiple searches in FMS but found no records corresponding to the plaintiff’s identified requests, only locating two unrelated requests from 2008 and 2012. Additionally, a search of HUD's Correspondence Tracking System yielded three entries related to the plaintiff but no relevant FOIA requests. The plaintiff disputes HUD's claim of non-receipt, suggesting that HUD’s failure to respond indicates a potential conspiracy against him regarding his eviction. The court notes that jurisdiction under FOIA requires evidence of improper withholding of agency records, and emphasizes that an agency is only obligated to respond to requests it has actually received; thus, the plaintiff's mailed requests do not impose a duty on HUD to respond.

Plaintiff must prove a genuine dispute of material fact regarding HUD's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by showing that his requests were received by the agency. Merely stating that requests were mailed is insufficient. Since the plaintiff fails to demonstrate HUD's receipt of his FOIA requests dated November 22, 2016, and February 16, 2017, HUD is not obligated to respond, leading to the court granting HUD's motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the court grants HUD's motion to strike the plaintiff's improper surreply and supplemental brief. The plaintiff's reference to discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) is construed as a motion under Rule 56(d)(2), which is denied due to a lack of a declaration outlining necessary facts for discovery. Summary judgment is granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view facts favorably to the non-moving party. Under FOIA, all facts and inferences are considered in favor of the requester, and summary judgment is appropriate only after the agency proves it has fulfilled its FOIA obligations. The court conducts a de novo review of FOIA cases and can award summary judgment based on agency affidavits, which must be detailed and non-conclusory.

A presumption of good faith applies to HUD, which cannot be challenged by speculative claims regarding the existence of other documents. HUD contends it was not obligated to search for or release records because it allegedly did not receive the FOIA requests dated November 22, 2016, or February 16, 2017. Deborah R. Snowden, Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, detailed HUD's FOIA request processing procedures, noting that requests are entered into the FOIA Management System (FMS) upon receipt, assigned a control number, and acknowledged within 24 hours. All requests are routed to the FOIA Branch for processing, regardless of their original address. Searches conducted in FMS did not locate the requested records, though HUD found two previous FOIA requests from 2008 and 2012 that had been closed. Additionally, searches of the Correspondence Tracking System yielded no records related to the plaintiff's requests. The plaintiff challenges HUD's claim of non-receipt, alleging a conspiracy involving HUD and leasing realtors to evict him, asserting that the records he requested would support his claims. The court's jurisdiction under FOIA requires evidence that an agency improperly withheld agency records.

The court determines that the plaintiff has not established that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests dated November 22, 2016, and February 16, 2017. Consequently, HUD has no obligation to respond to these requests, as the legal obligation to respond is triggered only upon receipt of the request, not merely mailing it. The plaintiff must provide evidence of receipt to meet his burden in the summary judgment phase, which he fails to do. The court grants HUD's motion for summary judgment, concluding that HUD did not violate FOIA. Additionally, the court grants HUD's motion to strike the plaintiff's improper surreply and supplemental brief. The plaintiff's request to take discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) is denied due to a lack of specificity regarding the facts he seeks and their relevance to the case.