Cluster 4380280

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 181 (D.D.C. 2017) (“The Court . . . must join numerous other courts in holding, as a matter of law, that the Privacy Act subsections (d)(1), (e)(5), (f), and others afford inmates and former inmates no cause of action regarding such records.”); Earle v. Holder, 815 F. Supp. 2d 176 , 181- 82 (D.D.C. 2011) (“It is settled that inmate records maintained by BOP, including presentence reports, have been exempted from the Privacy Act’s accur…

Pa. 2022) (finding that Bivens claim “against defendant [BOP staff member] in his official capacity is barred by sovereign immunity”), aff’d, No. 22-2421, 2024 WL 937070 (3d Cir. Mar. 5, 2024); Harrison, 248 F. Supp. 3d at 183 (finding inmate’s “alleged constitutional tort claims against the United States, the BOP, and its officers in their official capacities fail out of the gate on sovereign immunity grounds”); Miller v. Fed.

See, e.g., Haleem, 2024 WL 230289 at *14 (finding the Privacy Act precluded an APA claim for declaratory relief that the agency violated its own record- disclosure policies); Harrison v. BOP, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182 (D.D.C. 2017) (finding the Privacy Act precluded an APA claim that agency failed to provide requested records); Wilson v. McHugh, 842 F. Supp. 2d 310, 320 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding the Privacy Act precluded an APA claim that an agency improperly refused to take dow…

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182 (D.D.C. 2017) (same) (collecting cases).

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182-83 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Burnam v. Marberry, No. 07-CV-97, 2008 WL 4190785 , at *7 (W.D.

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988)), reconsideration granted on other grounds, 298 F. Supp. 3d 174 (D.D.C. 2018).

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated unspecified provisions of BOP “Program Statement 1351.5[,]” Compl. at 10, which the Court presumes is a reference to BOP Program Statement 1351.05 CN- 2 (Mar. 9, 2016), governing the “Release of Information[.]” Subsection 513.31 of that Program Statement states that “Social Security Numbers may not be used in their entirety as a method of identification for any Bureau record system, unless such use is authorized by statute or by…

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 180 (D.D.C. 2017).

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 181 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing cases)).

Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 181 (D.D.C. 2017) (holding “as a matter of law” that because the BOP’s Inmate Central Records System “appears to house all inmate records related to sentencing, [public safety factors], housing, custody classification, security designations, and the 6 like,” subsections (d)(1), (e)(5), and (f) of the Privacy Act “afford inmates and former inmates no cause of action regarding such records”) (citations omitted)). 3 IV.

Harrison v. Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182 (D.D.C. 2017).

See, e.g., Harrison v. BOP, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182 (D.D.C. 2017); Westcott v. McHugh, 39 F. Supp. 3d 21, 33 (D.D.C. 2014); Wilson v. McHugh, 842 F. Supp 2d 310, 320 (D.D.C. 2012); Tripp v. DOD, 193 F. Supp 2d 229, 238 (D.D.C. 2002); but see Radack v. DOJ, 402 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104 (D.D.C. 2005) (holding that Privacy Act does not preclude APA claim where plaintiff sought different relief than the Act could provide and where the “APA claim center[ed] on [agency’s] violation of…

See also Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 180-81 (D.D.C. 2017); Allmon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009).

See, e.g., Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172 , 180–81 (D.D.C. 2017).