On May 15, 2017, while detained in ICE custody at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, Jimenez died in an apparent suicide. According to the Complaint, Defendant had identified Jimenez as a suicide risk when he first arrived at the facility but nevertheless failed to afford him the necessary mentalhealth care and intervention. Instead, Plaintiff says, ICE placed Jimenez in solitary confinement. This unfortunate treatment spurred Jimenez’s family—led by Chaverra—to seek more information about the circumstances of his death. Chaverra began his quest for information through the FOIA. He filed a request with ICE seeking “all records, including medical, pertaining to” Jimenez. In its final response, ICE withheld all responsive records in full under Exemption 7(A), which protects certain documents compiled for law-enforcement purposes during the pendency of proceedings. In the event Exemption 7(A)’s protection expires—that is, the proceedings conclude—ICE reserved the right to assert additional exemptions. Chaverra’s appeal to the agency of this determination proved unsuccessful.
Plaintiff next bypassed FOIA’s procedures and directly contacted the ICE Health Services Corps at the Stewart Detention Center, from whom he requested the same medical records. This avenue, too, ended in a roadblock: ICE informed Chaverra that it would entertain a request for Jimenez’s medical records only via FOIA. So Chaverra reverted once again to that process. He filed a number of additional requests seeking a broad range of documents from a variety of governmental entities. Plaintiff’s efforts again bore no fruit, ultimately prompting this suit. Chaverra filed a seven-count Complaint against ICE, two other offices of the Department of Homeland Security, and Dr. Stewart D. Smith, the administrator who oversees the ICE Health Services Corps. FOIA serves as the cause of action for his first five counts. There, Plaintiff challenges the agencies’ withholding of various documents, including Jimenez’s medical records from his time in ICE detention, and alleges that Defendants did not adequately respond to Plaintiff’s subsequent FOIA requests. In Count VI, Chaverra seeks similar relief through a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. He alleges that the Privacy Rule—a regulation promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—bestows upon him a clear legal right to Jimenez’s medical records. Chaverra thus asks the Court to compel Defendants to turn over these records. Plaintiff seeks the same relief in Count VII, but this time under § 706(1) of the APA. Like his mandamus count, Chaverra contends here that ICE has a legal obligation under the Privacy Rule to turn over Jimenez’s medical records and explains that Defendant’s refusal to do so constitutes agency action contrary to law. Defendants moved to dismiss Counts VI (mandamus) and VII (APA), but did not challenge the FOIA claims this time around.
JUDGE JAMES E. BOASBERG ICE presents a host of arguments as to why Chaverra cannot proceed with his final two counts. The Court need not weigh in on all these disputes, however, because both Plaintiff’s APA and mandamus claims stumble on the same obstacle: FOIA provides an adequate remedy for Chaverra’s grievance. Although the APA was enacted to provide a broad spectrum of judicial review of agency action, such review is only permissible if there is no other adequate remedy at law. An adequate remedy does not mean identical relief, but only relief of the same genre. There is little doubt that FOIA offers an adequate remedy when litigants seek to gain access to records.
Chaverra’s APA cause of action complains that ICE unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed the legally mandated release of Mr. Jimenez’s medical records. As redress, he seeks access to these records. FOIA expressly provides that remedy. In an attempt to clear it and proceed with his cause of action, Plaintiff lodges two objections. First, he contends that FOIA’s promised relief is not adequate because some of the statute’s exemptions might apply. This argument faces an uphill battle from the start. It is well settled that the alternate remedy must be only of the “same genre”; it need not be identical. The relevant “genre” here is easy to identify: the disclosure of documents withheld by governmental organizations. This is what Plaintiff seeks, and this is what FOIA provides.
Second, Chaverra points the Court toward the agency’s own action. He notes that ICE created an online portal permitting individuals discharged from its detention centers to access their medical records. From this fact, he concludes that ICE does not mandate that FOIA is the exclusive remedy for obtaining these medical records. This argument falls wide of the mark. The question under § 704 is not whether the agency intends FOIA to be the exclusive remedy, but whether FOIA itself provides an “adequate remedy” for the plaintiff’s complaint. The fact that ICE may, in some other circumstances, permit the disclosure of medical records through other means has no bearing on this legal question. This objection, too, does not save Chaverra’s APA claim.
For much the same reason, Chaverra’s mandamus count yields the same result. A writ of mandamus compels an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. “Mandamus is drastic; it is available only in extraordinary situations. Relief is available only if a plaintiff demonstrates (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) that the government agency or official is violating a clear duty to act, and (3) that no adequate alternative remedy exists.” Chaverra asserts that HIPAA’s Privacy Rule serves as the basis for his legal entitlement to mandamus relief. Although the Government is now adamant that the Privacy Rule does not cover ICE’s retention of medical records, the Court need not reach this issue, for Chaverra’s claim falters on the third requirement necessary to invoke mandamus jurisdiction: that no alternative adequate remedy exists. In a near unanimous chorus, courts in this circuit have rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to use a writ of mandamus to compel agencies to turn over government records because FOIA gives them an adequate remedy. For these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. Count VI of Chaverra’s Complaint will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1)
and Count VII will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). A separate Order so stating will issue this day.
CRITICAL THINKING:
If ICE again denies the plaintiff’s FOIA request, what other options does plaintiff have? Do you agree that plaintiff’s other avenues to obtain the information were properly denied?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING:
What values are in tension with the transparency objective of FOIA requests?