Prisology, Inc. v. BOP, 852 F.3d 1114 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (Randolph, S.C.J.)

Prisology, Inc. v. BOP, 852 F.3d 1114 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (Randolph, S.C.J.)

Re: Complaint alleging BOP's failure to make certain records available electronically

Disposition: Affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that the requester lacks standing. The court finds that "[the requester's] complaint contains no allegation of injury, general or otherwise." "Even if we inferred an injury to [the requester] from the Bureau's alleged failure to publish its records electronically, this would not differentiate [the requester] from the public at large." "All that inference would reveal is a harm common to everyone[.]" Turning to one of the requester's arguments, the court notes that "[the requester] tries to fit itself within cases litigated under FOIA § 552(a)(3)[,]" but the court finds that "[it] do[es] not understand how the FOIA § 552(a)(3) decisions apply to this case." "[The requester] made no request of the Bureau of Prisons before bringing suit and therefore received no denial from that agency." "As to FOIA § 552(a)(2), [the court's] decisions dealing with the enforcement of this subsection have not discussed standing." "But in each such case the plaintiff made a request of the agency and the agency denied the request." Overall, the court finds that, "[i]nstead of alleging a particularized injury, [the requester] seems to argue that any violation of a statutory right to information is an injury in fact." Turning to another of the requester's arguments, the court notes that "[the requester] also claims that it has standing because its complaint amounted to a request for particular information." The court finds that "[t]he argument goes nowhere." "To the extent that a complaint may be seen as a request, it is a request for relief from a court." "If the court denies the request, the plaintiff may appeal." "But a court's refusal to grant relief cannot confer Article III standing that otherwise does not exist." Overall, the court finds that "[t]he result here may seem overly technical." "But [the requester's] predicament is one of its own making." "With little effort it may have been able to satisfy the requirements of Article III."