UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO,

,

PLAINTIFF

vs.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Washington, DC 20505,

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

1400 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1400,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530

and

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

9800 Savage Rd.

Fort Meade, MD 20755

DEFENDANTS

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-19

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Ryan Noah Shapiro is a citizen of Massachusetts residing at

, Cambridge, MA 02141.

2. Plaintiff is a Ph.D. candidate in the Program in History, Anthropology, & Science,

Technology, and Society (HASTS) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Plaintiff is an

historian of the political functioning of national security and the policing of dissent.

2

3. Plaintiff seeks access to certain public records to write popular news and/or

scholarly articles for distribution to the academic and general public. His connections and

relationships with a wide range of domestic and international media organizations will ensure

that any story he drafts based on the information contained in these documents will be published

and reprinted.

4. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an agency of the United States.

5. The CIA has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from

the CIA in his FOIA request to that agency.

6. Defendant Department of Defense (DOD) is an agency of the United States.

7. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a component of the DOD.

8. The DIA has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from

the DIA in his FOIA request to that component.

9. Defendant Department of Justice (DOJ) is an agency of the United States.

10. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a component of the DOJ.

11. The FBI has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from

the FBI in his FOIA request to that component.

12. Defendant National Security Agency (NSA) is an agency of the United States.

13. The NSA has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from

the NSA in his FOIA request to that agency.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This action arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC § 552.

15. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to 5 USC

§ 552(a)(4)(B).

3

16. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(B).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

17. Plaintiff’s FOIA requests pertain to Rolihlahla Mandela, a/k/a Nelson Mandela,

a/k/a Madiba, a/k/a Tata. Mandela (July 18, 1918 to December 5, 2013) was a South African

anti-apartheid revolutionary and politician who served over 27 years in prison for his activism

prior to becoming South Africa’s first black president following his release from prison in 1990.

Among numerous other awards, Mandela was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S.

Presidential Medal of Freedom.

18. The CIA was reportedly involved in Mandela’s 1962 arrest that led to his

decades-long incarceration. Mandela was denounced by his critics, including numerous leading

U.S. conservative politicians and pundits, as a Marxist terrorist.

19. Though the U.S. intelligence community is long believed to have been involved in

Mandela’s arrest, little specific public information exists regarding this involvement. Similarly,

though the U.S. intelligence community is long understood to have routinely provided

information to the South African regime regarding the anti-apartheid movement more broadly,

little specific public information exists about these activities either. Further, despite now being

universally hailed as a hero and freedom fighter against gross injustice, Mandela was designated

a terrorist by the United States government and remained on the U.S. terror watch list until 2008.

20. Plaintiff anticipates that the records to which he seeks access will begin to answer

the following questions: What was the extent and purpose of the U.S. intelligence community’s

4

surveillance of Nelson Mandela prior to his arrest? What role did the U.S. intelligence

community play in Mandela’s arrest and prosecution? What role did the U.S. intelligence

community play in the broader effort to surveil and subvert the South African anti-apartheid

movement? To what extent, and for what objectives, did the U.S. intelligence community surveil

Mandela following his release from prison? To what extent, if any, did the U.S. intelligence

community continue providing information regarding Mandela to the apartheid regime following

Mandela’s release from prison? What information did the U.S. intelligence community provide

American policymakers regarding Mandela and the South African anti-apartheid movement? To

what extent, and to what ends, did the U.S. intelligence community surveil the anti-apartheid

movement in the United States? How did the United States government come to designate

Nelson Mandela a terrorist threat to this country? How did this designation remain unchanged

until 2008? And what was the role of the U.S. intelligence community in this designation and

the maintenance thereof?

PLAINTIFFS’ FOIA REQUESTS AND DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES

21. On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff sent FOIA requests to the CIA, DIA, FBI, and

NSA via Certified mail, requesting copies of records mentioning or referring to Mandela.

Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 1-4, with his signature

replaced with “/s/ RNS”. Exhibit 5 is a set of five enclosures which were submitted with each

request. Exhibits 1-5 are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. In his requests to

the CIA, DIA, and NSA, Plaintiff requested expedited processing and a fee waiver.

5

CIA

22. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the CIA

described in Paragraph 21 was received by the CIA on December 19, 2013.

23. The CIA’s response to Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing with respect to

the request described in Paragraph 21 was due ten calendar days after the CIA received it on

December 19, 2013, which would have been December 29, 2013.

24. After ten days had passed and Plaintiff did not receive a response to his FOIA

request to the CIA, described in Paragraph 21, with a determination as to whether the CIA will

grant expedited processing, he commenced the present suit on January 8, 2014.

25. While this litigation was pending, the CIA issued a final response to Mr.

Shapiro’s FOIA request, stating that the request could not be processed because it would require

the agency to perform an unreasonably burdensome search.

DIA

26. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the DIA

described in Paragraph 21 was received by the NSA on December 18, 2013.

27. The DIA assigned Mr. Shapiro’s FOIA request tracking number 0125-2014.

28. In a letter dated January 2, 2014, the DIA denied Mr. Shapiro’s request for

expedited processing, claiming that Mr. Shapiro had not demonstrated a compelling need for the

information.

29. The January 2, 2014 letter also noted that the DIA was experiencing a “substantial

delay in processing requests” and that it was “impossible for [the DIA] to forecast when your

case will be completed.”

6

30. Mr. Shapiro appealed the DIA’s decision in its entirety in a letter dated January 7,

2014. Mr. Shapiro specifically stated that the grounds for his appeal included the denial of his

request for expedited processing as well as the DIA’s failure to provide an estimated date of

completion.

31. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was

received by the DIA on January 9, 2014.

32. In a letter dated January 14, 2014, the DIA acknowledged receipt of the appeal

and assigned it tracking number APP-0020-2014. The letter further stated that the agency would

be unable to respond to the appeal within FOIA’s 20 day statutory period due to “unusual

circumstances.”

33. The DIA’s response to Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was due twenty business days after

the DIA received it on January 9, 2014, which would have been February 7, 2014.

34. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a response to his

appeal to the DIA with a final determination as to his appeal.

FBI

35. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the FBI

described in Paragraph 21 was received by the FBI on December 16, 2013.

36. The FBI assigned Mr. Shapiro’s FOIA request tracking number 1244373-0.

37. In a letter dated December 19, 2013, the FBI granted Mr. Shapiro’s request for

expedited processing.

38. The FBI’s response to Mr. Shapiro’s request was due twenty business days after

the FBI received it on December 16, 2013, which would have been January 15, 2014.

7

39. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a response to his

request to the FBI with a final determination as to whether the FBI will release the requested

records.

NSA

40. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the NSA

described in Paragraph 21 was received by the NSA on December 21, 2013.

41. The NSA assigned Mr. Shapiro’s FOIA request tracking number 76029.

42. In a letter dated December 31, 2013, the NSA responded by referring Mr. Shapiro

to a “previusly [sic] released” Cryptolog document mentioning Mandela, but otherwise denying

the request on the basis that, pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, NSA can neither confirm nor deny

the existence or non-existence of records responsive to Mr. Shapiro’s request.

43. Specifically, with respect to Exemption 1, NSA’s December 31, 2013 letter

claimed that the existence or non-existence of records about Mandela is a properly classified

matter under Executive Order 13526 § 1.4(c), a provision which allows the government to keep

secret “intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or

cryptology,” but only when “unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause

identifiable or describable damage to the national security[.]”

44. Specifically, with respect to Exemption 3, NSA’s December 31, 2013 letter

claimed that the fact of the existence or non-existence of the information requested is exempted

from disclosure pursuant to The Espionage Act of 1917 (18 U.S.C. § 798); The National Security

Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)); and The National Security Agency Act of 1959 (50 U.S.C. §

3605).

8

45. Because there were no assessable fees, the NSA did not consider Mr. Shapiro’s

request for a fee waiver or to be placed in the media category for fee purposes.

46. The NSA also did not consider Mr. Shapiro’s request for expedited processing

because the December 31, 2013 letter provided the agency’s final response.

47. Mr. Shapiro appealed the NSA’s decision in its entirety in a letter dated January 7,

2014.

48. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was

received by the NSA on January 10, 2014.

49. In a letter dated January 24, 2014, the NSA acknowledged receipt of the appeal

and assigned it tracking number 3896.

50. The NSA’s response to Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was due twenty business days after

the NSA received it on January 24, 2014, which would have been February 24, 2014.

51. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a response to his

appeal to the NSA with a determination as to his appeal.

COUNT I:

VIOLATION OF FOIA

52. This Count realleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding

paragraphs.

53. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing on each of his requests described in

Paragraph 21.

54. Defendants CIA, DIA, and NSA have violated FOIA by failing to grant Plaintiff’s

requests for expedited processing.

9

55. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed until the CIA, DIA,

and NSA are ordered to grant Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing on his FOIA requests

described in Paragraph 21.

56. Plaintiff is entitled to a waiver of fees for his requests to the CIA, DIA, FBI, and

NSA which are described in Paragraph 21.

57. The CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA have violated FOIA by failing to grant Plaintiff’s

requests for fee waivers.

58. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed until the CIA, DIA,

FBI, and NSA are ordered to grant Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of fees for his FOIA requests

described in Paragraph 21.

59. The CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA have violated FOIA by improperly withholding

records, failing to conduct an adequate search, and in the case of the CIA, refusing to process the

request at all.

60. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed until Defendants are

ordered to disclose all responsive, releasable records.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

(1) Declare Defendants’ failure to comply with FOIA to be unlawful;

(2) Declare that Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA request;

(3) Grant Plaintiff an award of attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in

this action pursuant to 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(E)(i);

(4) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief which the Court deems proper.

10

Respectfully Submitted,

__/s/ Jeffrey Light_______________

Jeffrey L. Light

D.C. Bar #485360

1712 Eye St., NW

Suite 915

Washington, DC 20006

(202)277-6213

Jeffrey.Light@yahoo.com

Counsel for Plaintiff