Knuckles v. Department of the Army, No. 1:2015cv00077 - Document 62 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER denying as moot Defendant's 22 Motion to Strike; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 23 Motion to Dismiss; denying Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff's 59 Motion for Sanctions; and directing Plaintiff to file a motion for costs within fourteen days, which explains what costs she seeks to recover. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 7/19/2016. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Knuckles v. Department of the Army Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION JENIQUA IRENE KNUCKLES, * Plaintiff, * * v. CV 115-077 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, * * Defendant. * * 0 Four motions Defendant's to dismiss (doc. 31); the motion or, 23); and (3) (4) reasons in are to D currently strike E R pending (doc, Plaintiff's explained motion motion below, before 22); the alternative, Plaintiff's DENIED as moot, R for (2) motion for the Defendant's (1) motion for summary judgment summary sanctions Defendant's Court: judgment (doc. motion to (doc. 59). strike For is Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED. I. This case arises out Background of Plaintiff's relating to her employment at Fort Gordon. request for documents On August 15, 2014, Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff requested documents from Fort Gordon, which she intended to use in a Merit System Protection Board proceeding.1 (Doc. 10 at 3, 6.) When Plaintiff filed her amended complaint, over a year had passed, documents. (See Doc. and she had not received the requested 10.) In December 2015, Defendant finally released the documents Plaintiff requested.2 (Doc. 23, Ex. 1 I 11.) Plaintiff initiated this action on May 29, Eleven days facts. to later, (See Doc. inform it (Id.) She (Doc. she 6.) so a second In response, whether did filed she and voluntarily Then, on August 3, complaint. (See Doc. 8.) The explain whether she informed her that if later-filed complaint respond, and case in the directed this Court the and intended file case. to the Court again file the (Doc. the separate Plaintiff a new 8.) 1.) same re-docket filed case. a third instructed her case to and it would dismiss the complaint an Plaintiff case the cases. second separate When dismissed the third Clerk two dismissed she did not respond, consider alleging 2015, to (Doc. the Court ordered Plaintiff intended to 7.) case 2015. new without amended did not prejudice complaint as an 1 From the documents attached to Plaintiff's complaint and Defendant's motion to dismiss, it appears that Plaintiff actually submitted two requests for documents on August 14, 2015. Whether that is the case, however, is not dispositive of the issues before the Court. 2 documents The record also indicates that Defendant released some documents responsive to Plaintiff's other August 14 request - but, this is not particularly relevant to this case. — again, amended complaint. alleges that (Doc. Defendant release the documents to direct Special injunction 9.) Plaintiff's violated FOIA amended when it Plaintiff requested. Counsel requiring to the She investigate release of did Defendant or in the portions of moves dismiss alternative, for Plaintiff's Plaintiff moves 31, to fees. (Doc. the amended timely the Court Defendant, seeks documents, an seeks and asks for 10 at 5, 7.) Plaintiff's summary not asks $1,000,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages, court costs and attorneys' complaint amended judgment complaint. complaint, and to (Docs. strike 22, for summary judgment and for sanctions. 23.) (Docs. 59.) II. Discussion 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Defendant claim, (2) argues that released the FOIA does Plaintiff's claim requested documents, not provide for fails because mooting monetary Plaintiff's damages, Plaintiff is not entitled to court costs or attorneys' (4) involving Special Counsel is inappropriate. (1) fees, (Doc. 23.) (3) and The Court addresses these issues separately below. a. Mootness Defendant relief is moot argues because that it Plaintiff's has claim released all for the injunctive documents Plaintiff grounds requested. is a jurisdiction See GEICO motion under Gen. (11th Cir. A to to dismiss Federal Ins. 2015) motion Co. Rule v. dismiss for of based lack Civil Farag, 597 of on subject-matter Procedure F. mootness App'x 12(b)(1). 1053, 1054-55 ("[W]hen a district court disposes of a case on justiciability grounds, determination as if we treat the district court's it was a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . , even if the district court mistakenly has labeled its ruling a grant of summary for records judgment). Under which (i) FOIA, "each agency, upon any request reasonably describes such records and accordance with published rules stating (if any) , and procedures to be followed, the (ii) is made in time, place, fees shall make the records promptly available to any person." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). plaintiff against an district U.S.C. may seek an court when the § 552(a)(4)(B), information she has injunction agency agency improperly withholds but once requested, her a person FOIA in the records, receives claim A becomes 5 the moot. Lovell v. Alderete, 630 F.2d 428, 430-31 (5th Cir. 1980)3 ("The record clearly information he shows that sought .... Lovell Even has received though the 3 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (en banc) all of the information he (11th Cir. 1981) (adopting as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions rendered before October 1, 1981). sought . . . was information he dismissed delivered late, Lovell requested .... both actions The for mootness were sought."); Von Grabe v. U.S. App'x 687, (11th Cir. 688 2011) to delivered late, his FOIA has district the all court extent of that documents ("If a person receives claim is the correctly Dep't of Homeland Sec, information he has requested under FOIA, was now 440 F. all the even if the information moot to the extent such information was sought."). Here, that 14, it Defendant released all 2015. (Doc. claims, and relevant 23, Ex. Plaintiff documents 1 M to does not Plaintiff 10-11.) dispute, on Plaintiff, December however, argues that her claim is not moot because Defendant voluntarily ceased its behavior. "The doctrine of voluntary cessation provides an important exception to the general rule that a case is mooted by the end of the offending behavior." 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections, (11th Cir. 2004). "However, important exception to this important exception, no reasonable will, in suit." citizen but presumption Id. at actually 1283. a that recur the termination And "when the defendant government the after actor, objectionable there behavior is an when there is expectation that the voluntarily ceased fact, Id. there is is will activity of the not a private a rebuttable not recur." Because requested, repeat Defendant and its because improper motion on this released there the is behavior, no documents indication the Court Plaintiff that GRANTS it will Defendant's issue. b. Monetary Damages Because FOIA does not allow claims Plaintiff's request for damages fails. Serv. , No. Jan. 10, 6:13-cv-Orl-28KRS, 2014) Cir. damages No. U.S. damages, See Ajamu v. U.S. WL 169830, only FOIA Dep't of Agric, ("Plaintiffs for violations 5:00CV298-3, ("[T]he v. 2009) authorizes monetary at *6 Postal (M.D. Fla. ("FOIA does not allow for an award of damages."); Cornucopia Inst, (7th 2014 for of are FOIA because injunctive relief."); 2001 WL 721818, does damages . . . ."). not not at provide entitled 5 U.S.C. Gonser *7 for Accordingly, 560 F.3d 673, the the United Ga. States, May 17, recovery Court monetary § 552(a)(4)(B) v. (N.D. to 675 n.l GRANTS of 2001) money Defendant's motion on this issue.4 c. Special Counsel As Counsel noted, to Plaintiff investigate asks whether Defendant is appropriate. [w]henever agency 4 Court the records the Court to disciplinary it Special action against Under FOIA, court orders improperly the production withheld Because Defendant's motion to strike addresses finds appoint unnecessary to separately address Defendant's motion to strike is DENIED as moot. of from this any the same issue, that motion. the Therefore, complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the promptly withholding, the Special Counsel shall initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding. The Special Counsel, after investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, shall submit his findings and recommendations to the administrative authority of the agency concerned and shall send copies of the findings and recommendations to the officer or employee or his representative. The administrative authority shall take the corrective action that the Special Counsel recommends. 5 U.S.C. become § 552 (a) (4) (F) (i) . involved, ordered 169830, the the court disciplinary require[s] Court production at *8 n.17. find that for the of "[B]efore must have, agency correct before in disciplinary written finding that against the WL ("We also request can be order production assess attorney's fees and the Government agency 2014 552(a)(4)(F)] action (1) can things, Lovell's [Section of improperly withheld documents (2) litigation costs other Ajamu, dismissing taken ... it is necessary that the court other among Counsel 630 F.2d at 431 action .... that, Special records." See also Lovell, was the personnel and (3) issue may have a acted arbitrarily and capriciously."). In this case, because the Court has not ordered the production of any documents - and Plaintiff does not claim any documents remain withheld - the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion on this issue and declines to involve Special Counsel. d. Attorneys' Under Fees FOIA, plaintiff that a has § 552(a) (4) (E) (i) . to pro se Justice, court Attorneys' in 87 F.3d 1250, 1252 Brown v. U.S. 541 n.4 (11th Cir. lawyer, is not Therefore, 2006) entitled Plaintiff attorneys' however, cases. (11th Cir. litigant, Ray v. 1996) may Defendant's motion on this to U.S.C. available U.S. Dep't who was also a lawyer, attorney's fees recover a of (declining to award Dep't of Justice, not 5 are not in 169 F. App'x 537, ("[A] pro se litigant, to fees prevailed." fees, FOIA fees to a pro se a FOIA case); award "substantially litigants attorneys' may even if she is a under the attorneys' FOIA."). fees, and issue is GRANTED. e. Costs Like attorneys' fees, under FOIA, a court may award litigation costs "reasonably incurred in any case . . . in which the complainant has § 551 (a) (4) (E) (i) .5 she obtains relief enforceable written substantially prevailed." 5 A plaintiff has substantially prevailed if through either "(I) agreement or a judicial order, consent decree; or voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency, 5 U.S.C. or an (II) a if the The fact that Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is moot does not preclude an award of costs. See Lovell, 630 F.2d at 431 ("Even though Lovell's suits were mooted by the production of the requested documents, mootness does not automatically preclude an award of attorney's fees."). 8 complainant's claim is § 552 (a) (4) (E) (ii) . not insubstantial." Congress added substantially prevailed in 2007. Prior to this amendment, 688. was required reasonably to be show "that information . . . ." differently, a lawsuit provided Chilivis v. Through the was the S.E.C., 2007 as necessary 630 at required F.2d amendment, to however, Said that the disclosure." (11th Congress the 432. for 1212 could obtain "establish impetus 1205, a plaintiff action to necessary 673 the F.2d of 440 F. App'x at absent a court order, of U.S.C. definition See Von Grabe, Lovell, plaintiff this prosecution regarded 5 Cir. 1982). intended "to prevent federal agencies from denying meritorious FOIA requests, only to voluntarily liability 841, 845 for (2d comply litigation Cir. with costs." 2014) a request ... to Warren (reversing v. the Colvin, district avoid 744 court F.3d and finding a plaintiff entitled to costs where he filed a FOIA suit after a series of unsuccessful requests and the defendant voluntarily released the documents after the plaintiff initiated the suit). In this substantially documents case, the prevailed. Court is She satisfied filed her that first Plaintiff request has for in August 2014 and continued to attempt to follow up on her request through December. Plaintiff, however, did not receive all of the requested documents until December 2015, four months after she initiated this lawsuit.6 In fact, Defendant's brief acknowledges that it withheld the documents because of an administrative error and during this litigation. that it became (Doc. 23 at 1, aware 9.) of the request Given the temporal nexus between this lawsuit and the release of the documents, see Sikes Ga. v. 2013), at 845, United States, 987 F. Supp. 2d 1355, and the voluntary nature of the release, 1373 (S.D. Warren, 744 F.3d the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff may recover costs. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion on this issue.7 Because Plaintiff has not specified what costs she seeks, she is DIRECTED to file a motion for costs within fourteen days from the date of this Order explaining what she is entitled to. Plaintiff denied her request for damages, those figures. Defendant, reminded that she contends the Court has so her costs should not include of course, may respond to Plaintiff's motion within fourteen days. 6 is costs See S.D. Ga. L.R. 7.5. Indeed, Defendant acknowledges, the scope of Plaintiff's request was not determined until two weeks after Plaintiff filed her amended complaint, at which time Defendant began reviewing responsive documents. (Doc. 23, Ex. 1 1 11.) 7 Defendant also argues that, even if Plaintiff is eligible for costs, she is not entitled to them because she sought the records for personal reasons. See Lovell, 630 F.3d at 431-32 (noting that, with respect to attorneys' fees, once a court determines a party is eligible for fees, it should determine whether she is entitled to them by examining the public benefit of the request, the commercial benefit to the complainant, the nature of the complainant's interest, and the government's reason for withholding the records). Here, although Plaintiff arguably sought the records for personal use, Defendant has put forth no justifiable reason for withholding the documents. 10 2. Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment In her motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff asks the Court to find, as a matter of law, that Defendant violated FOIA.8 As discussed above, Plaintiff's claim is moot. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.9 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Plaintiff Civil Procedure Defendant's Rule also 11(c) moves 11. FOIA violation provides that "[i]f "(1) court Fed. when factual under Federal Plaintiff subjects after notice it and Rule argues a basis; R. may Civ. party (2) impose to sanctions. a reasonable files when an 11(c)(1). the a party has appropriate Sanctions pleading of that the court determines that Rule 11 (b) the sanction . . . ." reasonable sanctions alleged violated, appropriate for Essentially, opportunity to respond, been Sanctions that files a has are no pleading that is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as 8 a reasonable argument to In her brief in support of her motion for summary judgment and in a subsequent letter to the Court (doc. 52), Plaintiff also addresses issues she has with her removal from her position with the Army. Plaintiff's amended complaint, however, addresses only FOIA claims, and the Court has already denied as futile Plaintiff's request to add claims based on her removal from service. (Docs. 54, 58.) The Court, therefore, will not address Plaintiff's arguments. 9 In her complaint and motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff references a request she made on August 26, 2014. Defendant contends that it was not responsible for responding to that request because Plaintiff made it to her labor union. It appears that the union forwarded this request to Defendant. The Court declines to separately address Defendant's argument because Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant's December 2015 release did not respond to her August 2 6 request. 11 change existing law; or (3) when the party files a pleading in bad faith or for an improper purpose." Inv. LLC, 9, 2016) F. App'x , 2016 WL 890241, (citation omitted) Here, grounds Defendant's for established sanctions alleged strike Defendant violated violation is not Plaintiff Rule 11 and itself has her not motion for Conclusion reasons (doc. explained 22) (doc. DENIED is 23) is above, as GRANTED Defendant's motion to moot, Defendant's motion to in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment Plaintiff's motion for sanctions Plaintiff (11th Cir. Mar. is DENIED. the dismiss FOIA Accordingly, Ill. For at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted). sanctions. that Nero v. Mayan Mainstreet is DIRECTED to file (doc. a and (doc. 59) motion DENIED 31) part, is DENIED, is DENIED. with in the and Moreover, Court within fourteen days from the date of this Order explaining what costs she seeks to recover. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this /y^sday of July, 2016. HONQMBl^J. KANt>AL HALL UNITED STATES SOUTHERN 12 DISTRICT DISTRICT JUDGE OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
