Schulze v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM, OPINION and ORDER DENYING, without prejudice, the Department's Motion to Dismiss the FBI, DEA, and USMS, document 89 . The Court further ORDERS that the Department shall file and serve any further dispositive motion not later than 8/31/2012, or shall, before that date, file a statement of intention and a revised estimate of time required; order signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/29/2012. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MICHAEL SCHULZE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
)
INVESTIGATION, DRUG
)
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, )
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
)
SERVICE and DEPARTMENT OF
)
JUSTICE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:05cv0180 AWI GSA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS NON-DEPARTMENT
LEVEL AGENCIES AND
SETTING TIME LIMIT FOR
FILING OF THIRD
DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Doc. #’s 89 and 108

18
19
In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, defendant United States
20
Department of Justice (“Department”) has filed a motion to dismiss agency defendants
21
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and
22
United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) on the ground Department is the proper party
23
defendant where individual “components” within the Department are sued. Department has
24
voluntarily dismissed its pending motion for summary judgment and requested additional
25
time to determine its position following the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
26
Pickard v. Dep’t of Justice, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011). In response, plaintiff Michael
27
Schulze (“Plaintiff”) requests the court impose a deadline for any filing of further dispositive
28
motions by Department.

1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

The factual background of this action was throughly set forth in the court’s

3

memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for

4

summary judgment, filed on July 22, 2010, (hereinafter, the July 22 Order”). Doc. # 86.

5

Briefly, the currently operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on August 12,

6

2005. The FAC alleges three claims for relief. Plaintiff’s first claim for relief alleges

7

violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522a as to all Defendants and requests statutory

8

damages from all Defendants in the sum of $950,000. Plaintiff’s second claim for relief is

9

alleged pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 and requests

10

injunctive relief against FBI and DEA for the production of records pertaining to confidential

11

informant Stephen P. Olaes. Plaintiff’s third claim for relief is alleged against DEA and FBI

12

and requests injunctive relief to compel production of records pertaining to confidential

13

informant Shane K. Ahlo. The July 22 Order granted Defendants motion for summary

14

judgment as to Plaintiff’s first claim for relief under the Privacy Act. The July 22 Order

15

denied Defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs second and third claims

16

for relief under FOIA without prejudice.

17

On September 13, 2010, Department filed a motion to dismiss FBI, DEA and USMS

18

on the ground Department is the proper party defendant where the entities being sued are

19

agency subdivisions of the Department. In the same filing, Department moved for summary

20

judgment on Plaintiff’s two remaining claims for relief under FOIA on the ground that

21

Defendants’ “Glomar”1 response with regard to requests for documents pertaining to Oales

22

and Ahlo was appropriate. After several continuances Plaintiff filed his opposition to

23

Departments motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2011. In his opposition,

24

Plaintiff substantially relied upon a recent order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in

25

Pickard v. Dep’t of Justice, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011), a case that appears to support

26
27
28

1

The “Glomar” response reflects a doctrine which allows an agency to “neither confirm or deny” the
existence of responsive documents where such disclosure is statutorily exempt under FOIA. The doctrine was first
announced in Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 2009).

2

1

Plaintiff’s claim that the “Glomar” response is not appropriate where the identity of a paid

2

informant who is the subject of the FOIA request is made public. On December 9, 2011,

3

Department filed its reply brief which set forth its counter-arguments with regard to dismissal

4

of the “component” sub-divisions within Department and voluntarily withdrew its motion for

5

summary judgment without prejudice pending review of the impact of Pickard on their

6

response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. Department’s reply brief did not specify a time by

7

which it would make a decision as to how it would proceed. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff

8

moved for the establishment of a deadline by which Department would be required to either

9

file a dispositive motion or indicate its intentions with regard to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests as

10
11
12
13
14

to Ahlo and Oales.
The court will consider first Department’s motion to dismiss and then will address
Plaintiff’s request for a time certain for Department’s further response.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

15

Procedure can be based on the failure to allege a cognizable legal theory or the failure to

16

allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds,

17

Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir.1984). To withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to

18

Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must set forth factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to

19

relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

20

(2007) (“Twombly”). While a court considering a motion to dismiss must accept as true the

21

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425

22

U.S. 738, 740 (1976), and must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party

23

opposing the motion, and resolve factual disputes in the pleader's favor, Jenkins v.

24

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969), the allegations must be

25

factual in nature. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the

26

‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

27

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”). The pleading standard

28

set by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “does not require ‘detailed factual
3

1

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

2

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“Iqbal”).

3
4

The Ninth Circuit follows the methodological approach set forth in Iqbal for the
assessment of a plaintiff’s complaint:

5

“[A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying
pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to
the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework
of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

6
7
8

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at
9
1950).
10
DISCUSSION
11
I. Motion to Dismiss FBI, DEA and USMS
12
Federal agencies may not be sued in their own name except to the extent Congress
13
may specifically allow such suits. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514 (1952). Federal
14
departments and agencies are proper party defendants in FOIA litigation. This rule is derived
15
from the plain language of the Act, which vests the district courts with jurisdiction to enjoin
16
“the agency” from withholding records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Department contends that
17
FBI, DEA and USMS are “components” within Department and are not properly considered
18
“agencies” for purposes of FOIA actions. As a consequence, Department argues, Department
19
is the only proper party defendant for purposes of FOIA and the other entities should be
20
dismissed.
21
Of some significance, neither party can point to any case in which the Ninth Circuit
22
has spoken to this issue. Further, it appears that such case authority as exists in the context of
23
FOIA actions involving or potentially involving entities within the Department of Justice is
24
to be found in either the D.C. District Court or the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
25
Department cites three cases, each from the D.C. District Court, that address, albeit
26
tangentially, the issue of proper party defendant in FOIA actions against components of the
27
Department of Justice. In Sonds v. Huff, 391 F.Supp.2d 152 (D.D.C. 2005), the district court
28
4

1

dismissed FOIA claims against the DEA and against an individual official who was

2

presumably a DEA official. In reaching its decision to dismiss, the Sonds court noted simply

3

that “[t]he Drug Enforcement Administration is a component of the Department of Justice.

4

Moreover, the FOIA’s comprehensive remedial scheme addresses all claims relating to the

5

disclosure of government records and therefore precludes any recovery against individual

6

officials for the processing of a FOIA request.” Id. at 155. The court concludes the decision

7

in Sonds is thin support for the proposition that a FOIA action cannot be maintained against a

8

“component part” of the Department of Justice.

9

Department offers two cases from 2011, again, both from the D.C. District Court. In

10

Mingo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 793 F.Supp.2d 447 (D.D.C. 2011) and in Vazquez v. U.S.

11

Dep’t of Justice, 764 F.Supp.2d 117 (D.D.C. 2011), the district court recognized the division

12

of opinion among the judges of that district on the question of whether a component of the

13

Department could be sued in its own name under FOIA. See Vazques, 764 F.Supp.2d at 119

14

(noting the disagreement in that circuit as expressed in Prison Legal News v. Lappin, 436

15

F.Supp.2d 17. 21 (D.D.C. 2006)); Mingo, 793 F.Supp.2d at 451 (citing cases to illustrate the

16

different conclusions reached by various courts on the issue). In both Vazques and Mingo,

17

the district courts noted the lack of opposition to Department’s motion to dismiss and

18

dismissed the “component” entities within Department of Justice without actually resolving

19

the dispute.

20

The only decision by an appellate court cited by either party that directly pertains to

21

the issue of Department of Justice as sole proper party defendant in FOIA actions against its

22

“component” entities is Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 329 U.S.App.D.C.

23

(D.C. Cir. 1998). As Department correctly notes, the appellate court did not actually decide

24

the question of whether Department was the sole proper party defendant because that issue

25

was not raised in the court below. Rather, what the Peralta court did was devote substantial

26

attention to pointing out that its prior decisions tended to establish that FBI has been and

27

could be sued in its own name under FOIA. See id. at 173-174 (“FBI has litigated numerous

28

FOIA cases in its own name before the Supreme Court, this court, and other circuit courts,
5

1

with the DOJ or one of its components appearing as counsel”). The Peralta, court also noted

2

that the jurisdictional provision of FOIA grants jurisdiction over “agencies” as defined in 5

3

U.S.C. § 551(1). That definition, the court pointed out, “‘means each authority of the

4

Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another

5

agency . . . .’” Id. at 173.

6

From the foregoing, this court draws a few observations. First, there is no

7

jurisdictional impediment to a suit against FBI, DEA or USMS in their own names under

8

FOIA as they are all “agencies” subject to FOIA within the meaning of section 551(1).

9

Second, in a case where Department is a named party, courts may dismiss Department of

10

Justice component entities where there is no objection to the dismissal without impairing the

11

rights of either party. Whether or not the components are dismissed, the court retains

12

jurisdiction to issue injunctive orders that are binding on the components. Third, where

13

Department is a named defendant along with other named components of Department, there

14

is no clear and unambiguous authority for the proposition that the component entities are

15

entitled to dismissal. Fourth and finally, the court can see no reason why it would matter

16

much either way.

17

Department has the burden to present facts and law sufficient to show entitlement to

18

dismissal of FBI, DEA, and USMS. The court finds Department has not made that showing.

19

Given that the court is not appraised of any reason why the dismissal requested would make

20

much difference with regard to the benefits or burdens to any of the parties, the court is not

21

inclined to exert the effort to plow new judicial ground in this case at this time.

22

Department’s motion to dismiss will be denied. Leave will be granted to amend the motion

23

should new authority or facts become available. The court also notes that there are no

24

contentions currently before the court that go to the question of whether there are any

25

remaining claims against USMS following the grant of summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s

26

claim under the privacy act. While the court has some doubt that any active claims remain

27

against USMS, the court will leave it to the parties to make that determination and file further

28

motions as appropriate.
6

1
2

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Date Certain
In a case that has been characterized primarily by extensions of time for the benefit of

3

both parties, the court sees no reason to break from this tradition at this time. In their

4

response to Plaintiff’s motion to set filing date, Department avers that August 31, 2012,

5

would be a reasonable deadline for the filing of further dispositive motion. Based on the

6

statements provided in Department’s response, the court finds Department’s estimate of the

7

time required for response and/or filing of a further motion reasonable. The court will set a

8

deadline for further filings of August 31, 2012. Should that deadline appear un-achievable at

9

a later date, Department shall file a statement of intention and a revised estimate of the time

10

required.

11
12

THEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Department’s

13

motion to dismiss FBI, DEA and USMS is DENIED without prejudice. It is further

14

ORDERED that Department shall file and serve any further dispositive motion not later than

15

August 31, 2012, or shall, before that date, file a statement of intention and a revised estimate

16

of time required.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:
0m8i78

June 29, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7