Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantstatutemotionsummary judgmentstatute of limitationsmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantstatutemotionsummary judgmentstatute of limitationsmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Durable, Inc.; U.S. v.
View Case »
WSC Plumbing; U.S. v.
View Case »
English v. Sava
View Case »
Zavala-Mendez; U.S. v.
View Case »
See v. City of Seattle
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Samtmann v. Department of Justice

Facts

C. Craig Samtmann began his employment with the FBI in 1992 and rose to the position of Supervisory Special Agent. After changing divisions in 2003, concerns about his attendance arose, culminating in a meeting where a memorandum was drafted by his supervisor. Following his resignation in 2004, he submitted multiple FOIA/Privacy Act requests regarding his personnel file and sought reinstatement in 2006, which was ultimately denied based on information from the Timmons Memo. Samtmann filed a Privacy Act complaint in 2012, alleging that the FBI's actions violated his rights.

C. Craig Samtmann began his employment with the FBI in 1992 and rose to the position of Supervisory Special Agent. After changing divisions in 2003, concerns about his attendance arose, culminating in a meeting where a memorandum was drafted by his supervisor. Following his resignation in 2004, he submitted multiple FOIA/Privacy Act requests regarding his personnel file and sought reinstatement in 2006, which was ultimately denied based on information from the Timmons Memo. Samtmann filed a Privacy Act complaint in 2012, alleging that the FBI's actions violated his rights.

Issue

Whether Samtmann's claims against the FBI under the Privacy Act were time-barred and whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

Whether Samtmann's claims against the FBI under the Privacy Act were time-barred and whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

Rule

Under the Privacy Act, an action must be brought within two years from the date the cause of action arises, and a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim.

Under the Privacy Act, an action must be brought within two years from the date the cause of action arises, and a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim.

Analysis

The court determined that Counts I and II were time-barred because they were filed after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. The court also found that Samtmann had not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding Count III, as he had not completed the necessary steps before filing his complaint. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court determined that Counts I and II were time-barred because they were filed after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. The court also found that Samtmann had not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding Count III, as he had not completed the necessary steps before filing his complaint. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Samtmann's claims were time-barred and that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Samtmann's claims were time-barred and that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Who won?

The United States Department of Justice prevailed in the case because the court found that Samtmann's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

The United States Department of Justice prevailed in the case because the court found that Samtmann's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

You must be