Case Detail
Case Title | Rahim v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Eastern District of Louisiana | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | New Orleans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 2:2011cv02850 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2011-11-16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2013-05-31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Susie Morgan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Malik Rahim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | Federal Bureau of Investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Department of Justice | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [34] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Louisiana has ruled that the FBI properly withheld records concerning whether Brandon Darby was a confidential informant and that Malik Rahim failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his request concerning Common Ground Relief, formed to provide short-term relief after Hurricane Katrina and long-term support in rebuilding Gulf Coast communities. Darby worked with CGR from 2005 to 2008. In December 2008, Darby wrote a letter posted on the Internet indicating that he had served as an informant for the FBI. In January 2009, Darby testified as a government witness in the domestic terrorism trial of David McKay on charges of disrupting the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, and confirmed that he had been an FBI informant since November 2007. This prompted Rahim to request FBI records about CGR, particularly any records confirming Darby's role as an informant. The FBI responded that it would neither confirm nor deny that it had records on Darby without a Privacy Act waiver. Rahim submitted an "amended" FOIA request for the same records about himself, CGR and Darby, and at the same time appealed the agency's Glomar response on Darby to OIP, arguing that Darby's status as an informant had been publicly confirmed when he testified at McKay's trial. OIP denied the appeal. Two months later, the FBI sent Rahim 25 redacted pages pertaining to himself and CGR. Rahim did not appeal that response and instead filed suit. The agency argued Rahim had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he had not appealed the agency's records response. Rahim claimed his appeal concerning Darby's records qualified as an appeal of the entire request. Siding with the agency, the court noted that "nothing in Plaintiff's July 30, 2009 letter to OIP indicated he sought review of any aspect of the FBI's decision other than 'as it pertained to Brandon Darby.' The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding records pertaining to himself and CGR." Turning to the status of Darby's records, Rahim contended that his confirmation as an FBI informant suggested that his privacy interests were outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. Accepting that Darby had been officially confirmed as an informant, the court indicated nevertheless that his status was not relevant in this case. The court explained that "Darby has never made statements indicating he served as an FBI informant for any investigation involving Plaintiff or CGR. . .As a result, Darby's statements regarding the McKay case do not diminish his privacy interests in records, if any exist, that are responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request as to Plaintiff and the organization." Finding Rahim had not shown any public interest in disclosure of Darby's records, the court noted that "in essence, Plaintiff alleges that the FBI acted improperly by having Darby infiltrate the organization in order to 'disrupt' CGR's activities in New Orleans following Katrina. However, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any evidence to support his allegations that the FBI engaged in any sort of impropriety. Without evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe some sort of government impropriety might have occurred, Plaintiff cannot show that the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one or that the information sought is likely to advance that interest." Rahim also argued that the informant exclusion contained at 552(c)(2), allowing a law enforcement agency to exclude records about an informant unless that informant's status had been officially confirmed, did not apply because Darby's status had not been officially confirmed. The court indicated that "Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence indicating that Darby's status has been officially confirmed as an FBI informant for an investigation of Plaintiff and CGR. . .Any purported confirmation of Darby's status as an informant as to the McKay case is of no moment as to this case."
Issues: Exemption 7(D) - Confidential sources, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|