Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scarver v. McGlocklyn

March 4, 2008

MICHELLE SCARVER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DETECTIVE MCGLOCKLYN, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEFENDANT,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Michelle Scarver ("Plaintiff") commenced the instant action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, against "Detective McGlocklyn" in his official capacity as an employee of the Office of the Inspector General ("the Government"). Pending before the Court is the Government's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Government's motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural Background

The Government previously moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By Order dated August 28, 2006, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss, finding that the Government's argument was not properly brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). The Court ruled that challenges "to a plaintiff's ability to establish the merits of an otherwise well pleaded claim are more appropriately brought in a summary judgment motion." (Order at 4, Aug. 28, 2006.)

The Government then served Plaintiff with its Rule 56.1 Statement on April 17, 2007. Plaintiff failed to respond at first. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, this Court granted Plaintiff until May 25, 2007 to file her Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement in the event she wanted to dispute any of the facts set forth in the Government's Rule 56.1 Statement. Instead of filing a Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement, Plaintiff filed objections pursuant to Rule 56(f), claiming that the facts set forth in the Government's 56.1 Statement were inadmissible in the instant action because they related to a prior action involving Plaintiff, Scarver v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 00-CV-2505, which was dismissed by this Court on June 2, 2000. In addition, Plaintiff requested discovery.

The parties then appeared before this Court for a pre-motion conference on June 22, 2007. At the conference, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for discovery and explained to Plaintiff that if she wished to oppose the Government's motion for summary judgment, she had to first serve a Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement, in which she must set forth disputed issues of material fact with citations to evidence. The Court further advised Plaintiff that if she did not identify any disputed facts, the facts set forth in the Government's Rule 56.1 Statement would be deemed admitted. Plaintiff was also provided with a Rule 56.2 Notice by the Court.

On June 29, 2007, the Court received Plaintiff's purported Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement, in which she cites to her 2000 action against the FBI, claims that a July 19, 1999 letter referred to in paragraph 5 of the Government's Rule 56.1 Statement is inadmissible because she no longer seeks the relief requested in the letter and, once again, requests discovery. (Docket Entry 32.) Additionally, the Court notes that, in response to the Government's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff submitted "Plaintiff's Objection Pursuant to Rule 12(E)," (Docket Entries 41 and 42), in which she requests a more Definite Statement and claims the Government's memorandum of law is inadmissible and an obstruction of justice.

II. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from the Government's Rule 56.1 Statement and the exhibits thereto.*fn1

Plaintiff first submitted a FOIA request to the FBI on February 22, 1999 ("February 1999 Request"). (Govt's R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.) As best the Court can decipher, Plaintiff explained in her February 1999 Request that she is a missing person in both the United States and the United Kingdom, although under different names. (Hardy Decl. Ex. A.) In the February 1999 Request, Plaintiff sought all information pertaining to the two missing persons cases and information concerning the conspiracy to commit Plaintiff's murder. (Id.) After additional correspondence between the parties, Plaintiff sent a letter, dated July 15, 1999, to FBI Director Louis Freeh requesting that her February 1999 Request be expedited. (Govt's R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 2-4.)

On July 19, 1999, Plaintiff sent a follow-up letter also requesting her two million dollar inheritance file, a statement that would annul her marriage and a new birth certificate "as it has been determined that I have been abducted." (Hardy Decl. Ex. E.) On July 22, 1999, the FBI sent Plaintiff a letter advising her that it was unable to retrieve the requested file but would advise her when it did. (Govt's R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6.) The letter also advised Plaintiff of the administrative appeal process. (Id.) Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on August 2, 1999 with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Office of Information and Privacy ("OIP"). (Id. ¶ 7.)

On August 23, 1999, Plaintiff sent a letter to DOJ explaining the importance of retrieving all information in the FBI's files pertaining to Plaintiff in order to be placed in a "Witness Security Program" because her life is in danger and she is a "stolen Princess from England." (Hardy Decl., Ex. I.) After a number of letters back and forth, on November 30, 1999, Plaintiff sent another letter to FBI Director Louis Freeh asking for any FBI files pertaining to her, which was initially ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.