Muzumala v. Mayorkas

Background

Joshua Muzumala alleged that he was tracked, followed, and surveilled in several cities between September 2019 and at least November 2021. He submitted a records request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeking records concerning his permanent-residence status, removal records, and other records. The agency released many records, released some with redactions, and withheld some records. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) later reviewed and maintained redactions in 34 pages and eventually produced an additional spreadsheet without redactions.

Muzumala also submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for records relating to him, including criminal records, background checks, recordings, warrants, and records retrievable through his personal identifiers. The FBI responded within six business days that it could not identify responsive records and explained that certain identification records were handled by its Criminal Justice Information Services division. The FBI later made additional efforts to deliver the response and search for records.

The remaining claims included three non-FOIA claims and three FOIA claims. The Government moved to dismiss the non-FOIA claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. It also moved for summary judgment on the FOIA claims. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Muzumala cross-moved for summary judgment on the FOIA claims.

Non-FOIA claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Counts XII, XIV, and XV.

The court dismissed Count XII because it had already dismissed the same claim in an earlier round of the case. The court held that changing the legal label from a declaratory-judgment claim to an Administrative Procedure Act claim did not overcome the sovereign-immunity problem previously identified.

The court dismissed Count XV for the same reason. It had previously dismissed the substantially identical surveillance claim because sovereign immunity barred constitutional claims under the implied damages remedy recognized in Bivens against the named federal agencies or federal officials sued in their official capacities.

The court dismissed Count XIV because it duplicated the FOIA claim against ICE. The Administrative Procedure Act permits judicial review only when there is no other adequate remedy in court. The court concluded that FOIA provided an adequate remedy for the information Muzumala sought.

FOIA claims against the FBI

The court granted summary judgment to the Government on Counts I and II and denied Muzumala’s cross-motion.

For Count I, Muzumala argued that the FBI failed to respond within FOIA’s required time. The court rejected that argument because the FBI responded six business days after receiving the request, within the statutory period. The court also rejected Muzumala’s argument that the FBI had to respond by email because he had submitted the request electronically. The court explained that the FOIA provision concerning the requested form or format applies to producing records, not to the agency’s initial response.

For Count II, Muzumala argued that the FBI failed to conduct a reasonable search. The court concluded that the FBI’s declaration adequately described its record systems, search methods, and search results. The court also found that the FBI’s correction of an incorrect first name in an earlier declaration did not make the search inadequate; the revised declaration stated that the search used Muzumala’s correct name, and the supporting exhibits supported treating the earlier name as a typographical error. The court concluded that the FBI conducted an adequate search and properly explained that it found no responsive records.

FOIA claim against ICE

The court also granted summary judgment to the Government on Count XIII and denied Muzumala’s cross-motion. It concluded that ICE conducted adequate searches, including additional searches by relevant program offices after the lawsuit began. The court found that ICE’s declaration identified the offices and search terms used and that the later search produced an additional spreadsheet without redactions.

The court upheld ICE’s redactions under FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E). Exemption 3 covers information protected from disclosure by another statute. Exemption 6 protects certain personal and medical information when disclosure would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7(C) protects law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7(E) protects certain law-enforcement techniques, procedures, or guidelines when disclosure could risk circumvention of the law.

The court found that an alleged redaction error involving column headings did not deprive Muzumala of nonexempt information because the same headings appeared unredacted elsewhere. The court also concluded that apparent citation errors on one page did not matter because the information was properly withheld under Exemption 7(C), which Muzumala did not contest. Finally, the court found ICE’s index describing the withheld information and claimed exemptions adequate.

Attorney’s fees and disposition

The court rejected Muzumala’s request for attorney’s fees. It stated that pro se litigants—people who represent themselves—are not eligible for prevailing-party attorney’s fees under FOIA in the Second Circuit. The court also found that Muzumala had not substantially prevailed because his efforts produced no additional FBI documents and only one additional ICE document, along with the removal of some redactions from another document.

Judge Koeltl granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, denied Muzumala’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case and close the pending motions.