United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
WEBSTER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a federal prisoner, submitted a document entitled
“Request for Copies of Any and All Related Case Files
to the Above Referenced Case Numbers Pursuant to the Freedom
of Information Act, Privacy Act and Vaughn v
Rosen” (Docket Entry 43) in which he seeks an
extensive list of materials, much of which does not even
appear to be in the Court's possession. In any event,
Petitioner's filing is not proper as styled. The federal
courts are not “agencies” under FOIA and,
therefore, are not subject to FOIA's disclosure
requirements. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B); United States v.
Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 59 n.3 (5th Cir. 1993);
United States v. Alcorn, 6 Fed.Appx. 315,
2001 WL 278705 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). The Privacy Act
adopts that same definition of “agency.”
Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 707 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Therefore, Petitioner cannot properly bring a FOIA or Privacy
Act claim against the Court. As for “Vaughn v Rosen,
” that is a reference to the case of Vaughn v.
Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), which dealt with
the disclosure of documents in a Freedom of Information Act
request from the Bureau of Personnel Management. It is not
related to, and does not authorize, any Freedom of
Information Act request for documents from the Court.
intentions in seeking the documents he requests are unclear,
but it appears that he intends to attack the conviction or
sentence he received in this Court. The document he filed is
not a recognizable method for achieving this goal. Instead,
the proper avenue for such an attack is ordinarily a motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court
will construe the submission as such a motion. However, the
Motion cannot be further processed for the following reasons:
1. The Motion is not on the proper § 2255 form.
2. Petitioner does not set out any potential claims for
of these pleading failures, this particular Motion will be
dismissed, but without prejudice to Petitioner promptly
filing a new motion properly following the 28 U.S.C. §
2255 forms and correcting the defects of the present
Motion. To further aid Petitioner, the Clerk is
instructed to send Petitioner new § 2255 forms and
instructions for filing a § 2255 motion, which
Petitioner should follow if he wishes to bring a claim under
THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to send
Petitioner § 2255 forms and instructions.
RECOMMENDED that this action be filed and dismissed sua
sponte without prejudice to Petitioner promptly filing a
corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms if he seeks
to attack his sentence or conviction.
 Because Petitioner's submission is
being dismissed without prejudice and is not being decided on
its merits, this case will not count as a first motion which
would later trigger the prohibitions against second or
successive motions found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
However, if Petitioner chooses to later submit a § 2255
motion that conforms with this Order and Recommendation, he
should be aware that he is normally entitled to have only one
§ 2255 motion decided on its merits. Second or
successive motions are barred from consideration by this
Court unless a petitioner first receives permission from the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to file such a motion. 28
U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244. That permission is
granted only in very narrow circumstances. Because of this,
Petitioner should act carefully in resubmitting a motion.
See generally Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375
(2003). If Petitioner wishes to challenge his conviction, he
must use the § 2255 forms supplied by the Court, include
all of the claims for relief he wishes to raise, and closely
follow the instructions provided. To the extent there are any
issues regarding the running of the statute of limitations in
this case, the parties can litigate those issues following
any refiling by Petitioner. If Petitioner wants a form of
relief other than ...