Zaragosa-Solis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

The opinion states that six federal prisoners and one non-prisoner originally brought a self-represented action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). They alleged that, after communicating with a reporter from The Marshall Project about an article on prison rape, the BOP subjected the prisoners to severe retaliation. They sought only declarations and injunctions. The complaint also mentioned ignored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act requests, but did not request relief based on those requests.

An earlier order severed the plaintiffs’ claims and directed the Clerk of Court to open a separate civil action for each plaintiff. This action concerns Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis II, who the opinion says is incarcerated at USP Coleman II in Florida.

FOIA and Privacy Act claims

The court dismissed the FOIA and Privacy Act claims without prejudice. For the FOIA claims, the court explained that a requester must identify agency records that were improperly withheld and must reasonably describe the records sought. The complaint did not describe the requested records or allege facts showing that they were agency records or were improperly withheld.

The court also found that the complaint stated no facts explaining how the alleged events implicated the plaintiff’s rights under the Privacy Act. It therefore dismissed any Privacy Act claims without prejudice to repleading them in a separate action.

Reclassification under Section 2241

Although the plaintiff filed a civil-rights complaint, the court applied the rule requiring self-represented filings to be read liberally. It concluded that the plaintiff was challenging conditions of confinement, including telephone and mail restrictions allegedly imposed in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights. Relying on Second Circuit authority concerning federal prisoners’ challenges to the execution of their sentences and conditions of confinement, the court reclassified the filing as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The court directed the BOP to answer the reclassified petition. It did not decide whether the alleged retaliation or restrictions violated the First Amendment.

Order

The court dismissed the FOIA and Privacy Act claims without prejudice, construed the complaint as a Section 2241 petition, and directed the United States Attorney’s Office to file an answer or other response within 60 days. The plaintiff may file reply papers within 30 days after being served with the government’s answer. The court separately granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, but denied that status for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The opinion inconsistently refers to the plaintiff as “Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis III” in one background passage, while the caption and other portions identify him as “Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis II.”