×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
No Disclosure of Federal Prisoners Held in Illinois Jail
A federal district court in Illinois held that the Illinois Freedom of
Information Act did not allow the disclosure of the names of federal
prisoners held in the DeWitt county jail in Illinois. A reporter from The
Pantagraph, a local newspaper, filed the information request. The sheriff
disclosed the information pertaining to state prisoners held in the jail,
but not the federal ones held on contract with the Marshals service. The
reporter and newspaper filed suit in state court to compel disclosure of
the records. The federal government intervened and removed the case to
federal court. The federal court held that disclosing the names of federal
prisoners would be an unwarranted invasion of the prisoners' privacy, as
it would stigmatize them and cause irreparable harm to their reputations.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The ruling appears
to contradict other court rulings that hold there is no privacy interest
in the fact of arrest, which presumably all jail prisoners were. See:
Brady Lunny v. Massey, 185 F. Supp.2d 928 (CD IL 2002).
Information Act did not allow the disclosure of the names of federal
prisoners held in the DeWitt county jail in Illinois. A reporter from The
Pantagraph, a local newspaper, filed the information request. The sheriff
disclosed the information pertaining to state prisoners held in the jail,
but not the federal ones held on contract with the Marshals service. The
reporter and newspaper filed suit in state court to compel disclosure of
the records. The federal government intervened and removed the case to
federal court. The federal court held that disclosing the names of federal
prisoners would be an unwarranted invasion of the prisoners' privacy, as
it would stigmatize them and cause irreparable harm to their reputations.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The ruling appears
to contradict other court rulings that hold there is no privacy interest
in the fact of arrest, which presumably all jail prisoners were. See:
Brady Lunny v. Massey, 185 F. Supp.2d 928 (CD IL 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Brady Lunny v. Massey
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 185 F. Supp.2d 928 (CD IL 2002). |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
BRADY-LUNNY v. MASSEY, 185 F.Supp.2d 928 (C.D.Ill. 02/08/2002)
[1] United States District Court, Central District of Illinois
[2] No. 01-3222
[3] 185 F.Supp.2d 928, 2002
[4] February 8, 2002
[5] EDITH BRADY-LUNNY AND PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY, D/B/A THE PANTAGRAPH, PLAINTIFFS,
V.
ROGER MASSEY, SHERIFF OF DEWITT COUNTY, DEFENDANT, AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR.
[6] Donald M. Craven, Craven Law Office, Springfield, Il., For Plaintiffs.
[7] James A. Lewis, Office of U.S. Attorney, Springfield, Il., For Defendant.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge:
[9] OPINION
[10] The Pantagraph and its reporter want the Government to provide them with a list of federal inmates held in a county jail.
[11] Are they entitled to it?
[12] Security and privacy issues dictate the answer.
[13] The answer is no.
[14] FACTS
[15] Edith Brady-Lunny is a reporter for The Pantagraph, an Illinois newspaper owned by the Pulitzer Publishing Company. On October 10, 2000, Brady-Lunny sent an Illinois Freedom of Information Act ("Illinois FOIA") request to Roger Massey, Sheriff of DeWitt County, asking for various information about prisoners in his custody. Sheriff Massey provided the information with respect to state inmates, but he did not furnish information about federal inmates.
[16] On October 13, 2000, Brady-Lunny sent Sheriff Massey a second Illinois FOIA request. Her second request asked Sheriff Massey to provide information for "all inmates." But Sheriff Massey declined Brady-Lunny's request on the basis that the Illinois FOIA statute, 5 ILCS § 140, et seq. (West 1994), created no jurisdiction over federal concerns.
[17] Following the denial of Brady-Lunny's Illinois FOIA request, Brady-Lunny, The Pantagraph, and the Pulitzer Publishing Company filed suit against Massey to require him to produce the requested information. The United States intervened in an effort to protect information about federal inmates. The Government then removed the Plaintiffs' case to this Court pursuant to the federal question doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
[18] STANDARD
[19] A motion for summary judgment must be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Herman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 (1985). When determining whether factual issues exist, a "court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." See Black v. Henry Pratt Co., 778 F.2d 1278, 1281 (7th Cir. 1985).
[20] However, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriately entered `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" See McKenzie v. Illinois Department. of Transportation, 92 F.3d 473, 479 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552 (1986)).
[21] To successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must do more than raise a "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Rather, he "must come forward with `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Id.
[22] ANALYSIS
[23] In this case, the Government refused to accede to the Plaintiffs' Illinois FOIA request for information about federal inmates because the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the "BOP") has a prohibition which states that lists of federal inmates "shall not be disclosed." See 28 C.F.R. § 513.34(b). The Plaintiffs contend that the Government's refusal was improper since: 1) they made their request pursuant to the Illinois FOIA, not the Federal FOIA; 2) 28 C.F.R. § 513.34(b) is invalid because it is contrary to the Federal FOIA's general policy of full disclosure; and 3) even if 28 C.F.R. § 513.34(b) is valid, it is inapplicable here because the DeWitt County Jail is not a BOP institution.
[24] Since the Government is the party refusing to produce the documents, it bears the burden of showing that the documents are not subject to disclosure. See U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989).
[25] I
[26]
Although the State of Illinois "encourages a free flow in disclosure of information between government and the people", the Illinois FOIA "specifically exempts from government disclosure numerous categories of information and documents." See Bowie v. Evanston Cmty. Consol. School Dist. No. 65, 128 Ill.2d 373, 376, 538 N.E.2d 557, 558, 131 Ill.Dec. 182, 183 (1989). One such exemption is found at 5 ILCS § 140/7(1)(a). Under this provision, information need not be disclosed if it is "specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations adopted under federal or State law." See id.
[1] United States District Court, Central District of Illinois
[2] No. 01-3222
[3] 185 F.Supp.2d 928, 2002
[4] February 8, 2002
[5] EDITH BRADY-LUNNY AND PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY, D/B/A THE PANTAGRAPH, PLAINTIFFS,
V.
ROGER MASSEY, SHERIFF OF DEWITT COUNTY, DEFENDANT, AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR.
[6] Donald M. Craven, Craven Law Office, Springfield, Il., For Plaintiffs.
[7] James A. Lewis, Office of U.S. Attorney, Springfield, Il., For Defendant.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge:
[9] OPINION
[10] The Pantagraph and its reporter want the Government to provide them with a list of federal inmates held in a county jail.
[11] Are they entitled to it?
[12] Security and privacy issues dictate the answer.
[13] The answer is no.
[14] FACTS
[15] Edith Brady-Lunny is a reporter for The Pantagraph, an Illinois newspaper owned by the Pulitzer Publishing Company. On October 10, 2000, Brady-Lunny sent an Illinois Freedom of Information Act ("Illinois FOIA") request to Roger Massey, Sheriff of DeWitt County, asking for various information about prisoners in his custody. Sheriff Massey provided the information with respect to state inmates, but he did not furnish information about federal inmates.
[16] On October 13, 2000, Brady-Lunny sent Sheriff Massey a second Illinois FOIA request. Her second request asked Sheriff Massey to provide information for "all inmates." But Sheriff Massey declined Brady-Lunny's request on the basis that the Illinois FOIA statute, 5 ILCS § 140, et seq. (West 1994), created no jurisdiction over federal concerns.
[17] Following the denial of Brady-Lunny's Illinois FOIA request, Brady-Lunny, The Pantagraph, and the Pulitzer Publishing Company filed suit against Massey to require him to produce the requested information. The United States intervened in an effort to protect information about federal inmates. The Government then removed the Plaintiffs' case to this Court pursuant to the federal question doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
[18] STANDARD
[19] A motion for summary judgment must be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Herman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 (1985). When determining whether factual issues exist, a "court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." See Black v. Henry Pratt Co., 778 F.2d 1278, 1281 (7th Cir. 1985).
[20] However, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriately entered `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" See McKenzie v. Illinois Department. of Transportation, 92 F.3d 473, 479 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552 (1986)).
[21] To successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must do more than raise a "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Rather, he "must come forward with `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Id.
[22] ANALYSIS
[23] In this case, the Government refused to accede to the Plaintiffs' Illinois FOIA request for information about federal inmates because the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the "BOP") has a prohibition which states that lists of federal inmates "shall not be disclosed." See 28 C.F.R. § 513.34(b). The Plaintiffs contend that the Government's refusal was improper since: 1) they made their request pursuant to the Illinois FOIA, not the Federal FOIA; 2) 28 C.F.R. § 513.34(b) is invalid because it is contrary to the Federal FOIA's general policy of full disclosure; and 3) even if 28 C.F.R. § 513.34(b) is valid, it is inapplicable here because the DeWitt County Jail is not a BOP institution.
[24] Since the Government is the party refusing to produce the documents, it bears the burden of showing that the documents are not subject to disclosure. See U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989).
[25] I
[26]
Although the State of Illinois "encourages a free flow in disclosure of information between government and the people", the Illinois FOIA "specifically exempts from government disclosure numerous categories of information and documents." See Bowie v. Evanston Cmty. Consol. School Dist. No. 65, 128 Ill.2d 373, 376, 538 N.E.2d 557, 558, 131 Ill.Dec. 182, 183 (1989). One such exemption is found at 5 ILCS § 140/7(1)(a). Under this provision, information need not be disclosed if it is "specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations adopted under federal or State law." See id.