Estevez v. United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 35 Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS Respondents' motion to dismiss Petitioner's claims under the FOIA and the Privacy Act against the Individual Respondents WITH PREJUDICE.. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 4/14/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESUS ESTEVEZ,

Case No.: 15cv2941-AJB-JLB
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING
RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Doc. No. 35)

v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15
16

Respondents.

17
18

Presently before the Court is Respondents United States Attorney’s Office for the

19

Southern District of California, Federal Bureau of Prison, Western Regional Office, and

20

the United States Marshal for the Southern District of California’s (collectively referred to

21

as “Respondents”) motion to dismiss Petitioner Jesus Estevez’s (“Petitioner”) Freedom of

22

Information Act (“FOIA”) and Privacy Act claims against nine individual respondents.

23

(Doc. No. 35.) Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court finds this motion suitable

24

for determination on the papers and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local

25

Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS Respondents’

26

motion.

27

///

28

///
1
15cv2941-AJB-JLB

1

BACKGROUND

2

On March 21, 2017, Petitioner filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No.

3

33.) In addition to Petitioner’s previous claims that he is being denied access to records

4

under the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the California Public Records Act, Petitioner also

5

names nine new individual respondents: Laura E. Duffy; Crystaline Smith; Susan B.

6

Gerson; Dennis M. Wong; Angela C. Brooks; William E. Bordley; Sean O’Neill; Christina

7

D. Troiani; and Thomas D. Anderson (collectively referred to as “Individual

8

Respondents”). (Id. at 1, 5.) On March 29, 2017, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the

9

Individual Respondents with prejudice. (Doc. No. 35.) Petitioner filed a non-opposition to

10

Respondents’ motion on April 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 37.)

11

LEGAL STANDARD

12

A.

13

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s

14

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has

15

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d

16

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack

17

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.”

18

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996)

19

(citation omitted). However, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains

20

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

21

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this determination, a court reviews the

22

contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all

23

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l

24

League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007).

25

Motion to Dismiss

DISCUSSION

26

Respondents request that Petitioner’s FOIA and Privacy Act claims against the

27

Individual Respondents be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 35-1 at 2.) Respondents

28

predicate this assertion on the fact that neither the FOIA nor the Privacy Act allows suits
2
15cv2941-AJB-JLB

1

to be brought against individuals. (Id.) In response, Petitioner does not oppose

2

Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Individual Respondents. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.)

3

The Court finds Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Individual Respondents to be

4

appropriate. See Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 785 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the

5

“FOIA does not apply to any of the [d]efendants because they are all individuals, not

6

agencies”); see also L.A. Times Commc’n, LLC v. Dept. of the Army, 442 F. Supp. 2d 880,

7

892 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (stating that the FOIA provides individuals with a “judicially-

8

enforceable right of access to government agency documents”) (emphasis added) (citation

9

omitted); Rouse v. U.S. Dept. of State, 567 F.3d 408, 414 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the

10

Privacy Act can only be used when an agency fails to maintain any record concerning any

11

individual) (emphasis added); Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1377 (9th Cir. 1986)

12

(holding that the Privacy Act only authorizes suit against an “agency”). Accordingly,

13

finding that no plausible legal claim under the FOIA or the Privacy Act may be asserted

14

against the Individual Respondents, the Court GRANTS Respondents’ motion.

15

CONCLUSION

16

For the reasons set forth more fully above, the Court GRANTS Respondents’

17

motion to dismiss Petitioner’s claims under the FOIA and the Privacy Act against the

18

Individual Respondents WITH PREJUDICE.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: April 14, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv2941-AJB-JLB