UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MONTA ORLANDO JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-2195 (JEB) U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Federal prisoner Monta Orlando Jordan submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Defendant Drug Enforcement Administration seeking information about a DEA investigation of him. Specifically, he sought two names — the agent who opened the investigation and the one who authorized a subpoena of his phone number — and the date the investigation was opened. Defendant declined to produce any responsive documents, which prompted Jordan to file this pro se suit. The parties have now cross-moved for summary judgment. The agency contends that Plaintiff’s request was improper under FOIA for multiple reasons, including because it requested specific information instead of agency records as the statute requires. Agreeing with that proposition, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and deny Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion. I. Background Following a DEA investigation that culminated in an indictment, a jury found Jordan guilty of multiple drug offenses. See ECF No. 12-1 (Def. MSJ) at 2. In May 2021, he was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Id. A few months later, in October, he sent DEA a letter 1 seeking the following information: “1) Name of the DEA agent and date the DEA investigation was opened regarding Monta Orlando Jordan. 2) Name of the DEA agent who submitted and signed to authorize the December 28, 2016 DEA administrative subpoena regarding phone number (540) 632-8266.” ECF No. 12-4 (First FOIA Letter) at 1. Jordan sent a follow-up letter in February 2022 requesting the same, though with slightly different phrasing: “1) The name of the DEA officer/personnel who sought the December 28, 2016 DEA administrative subpoena regarding phone number (540) 632-8266 of Monta Jordan directed to Cellco and/or Verizon or any of its affiliate companies. 2) The name of the DEA agent and date the DEA investigation was opened regarding Monta O. Jordan.” ECF No. 12-5 (Second FOIA Letter). Plaintiff appends a third, undated FOIA-request letter to his Complaint, which is worded slightly differently and asks specifically for “the December 28, 2016 administrative subpoena and any related affidavits/documents.” ECF No. 1-1 (Compl. Exhs.) at 3. The record contains no evidence, however, that DEA ever received that letter, nor does Jordan invoke that iteration of the request in his Opposition. See ECF No. 12-3 (Decl. of Angela Hertel), ¶¶ 6–14 (acknowledging receipt of only the October 2021 and February 2022 letters); ECF No. 14 (Cross-MSJ and Pl. Opp.) at 1 (citing Hertel Decl. in describing nature of FOIA request). The Court will therefore consider only the October and February letters in resolving the Cross- Motions. DEA treated those two letters as a single request and responded in March 2022. See ECF No. 12-2 (Def. SOMF), ¶¶ 6–7. It declined to “confirm or deny the existence of such records pursuant to [FOIA] Exemptions 6 & 7(C). . . . Even to acknowledge the existence of records and reveal the identity of a Special Agent …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals