descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Thomas G. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children Joan B. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children Alexandra Reinbold Brandelin Reinbold v. Wayne K. Evers, Commander, Usn Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant, (Usn. Ret.), Thomas B. Reinbold Joan B. Reinbold, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children, Alexandra Reinbold and Brandelin Reinbold v. United States of America William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense Diana L. Healy John M. Schmidt, Individually and as Employee of the National Security Agency Kenneth Minihan, Lieutenant General, United States Air Force, Director, National Security Agency, in Their Official Capacities John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, in His Official Capacity Two Unknown Named Non-Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers, Individually and as Members of the United States Navy U.S. Department of Defense National Security Agency United States Department of the Navy, and Wayne K. Evers, Commander Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant

Citations: 187 F.3d 348; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18260Docket: 98-1896

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 5, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case concerns a lawsuit filed by an NSA employee and his family against the United States, the Department of Defense, NSA, and Navy officials, alleging Fourth Amendment violations and a conspiracy to revoke his security clearance. The plaintiff claimed illegal searches, falsified evaluations, and improper suspension of his sensitive compartmented information (SCI) clearance as retaliation for reporting misconduct. The case involved multiple claims, including under the Privacy Act and Bivens claims for constitutional torts. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower courts' rulings, dismissing most claims due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, adherence to the statute of limitations, and the non-reviewability of security clearance decisions as per Egan. Reinbold's Privacy Act claims were dismissed as the Act does not mandate altering records to reflect alternative narratives. Claims against individual defendants were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the court upheld the denial of interim attorneys' fees due to insufficient evidence of the lawsuit's impact on record release. The courts affirmed the dismissals based on statutory interpretations and procedural grounds, emphasizing strict adherence to jurisdictional limitations and statutory timelines.

Legal Issues Addressed

Fourth Amendment Violations

Application: Reinbold alleged Fourth Amendment violations due to unlawful search and seizure by the defendants, including a conspiracy to conduct illegal searches and falsify evaluations.

Reasoning: Reinbold claimed that the defendants conspired to conduct illegal searches and that individual defendants Holt and Evers executed such searches against him, alongside allegations of a cover-up involving false psychological evaluations and incident reports in his NSA records.

Interim Attorneys' Fees under the Privacy Act

Application: Reinbold's request for interim attorneys' fees was denied as he failed to demonstrate that his legal action substantially contributed to the release of his records.

Reasoning: Reinbold appealed the denial of his motion for interim attorneys' fees, arguing that the NSA's subsequent action on his request indicated he had 'substantially prevailed.'

Privacy Act Claims

Application: Reinbold's claims under the Privacy Act were dismissed as the Act does not allow for compelling agencies to alter records to reflect a different narrative, only factual inaccuracies.

Reasoning: Reinbold's Privacy Act claim regarding the NSA's refusal to amend records was dismissed, as the Act only permits corrections of factual inaccuracies, not alterations of recorded opinions.

Security Clearance and Judicial Review

Application: The court held that decisions regarding security clearances are not subject to judicial review unless explicitly authorized by Congress, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Egan.

Reasoning: The Fourth Circuit maintains that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Egan, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review agency decisions regarding security clearances unless specifically mandated by Congress.

Standing to Sue Under the Privacy Act

Application: Only individuals who have directly requested amendments to their records or who have been declared incompetent can maintain a claim under the Privacy Act.

Reasoning: Reinbold's wife, Joan, lacks standing to maintain a claim under the Privacy Act since there is no indication she was involved in Reinbold's request to correct his records or his delay claim.

Statute of Limitations for Bivens Actions

Application: Reinbold's Bivens action was dismissed as time-barred under West Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

Reasoning: On May 29, 1998, the district court granted the motion solely on the grounds that Reinbold's complaint was filed beyond the statute of limitations.