Reyes v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office

Filing 3

ORDER (1) Granting 2 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and (2) Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice for Failing to State a Claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is granted. The Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 6/26/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

EMILIO REYES,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE,

16

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

17
18

Plaintiff Emilio Reyes, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, brought an action

19

under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) against Defendant Bureau of Indian

20

Affairs Pacific Regional Office. Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil filing fee

21

required to commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma

22

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

23

A.

Motion to Proceed IFP

24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of

25

a suit without prepayment of fees if plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a

26

statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay filing fees. See 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit sufficiently showing

28

that he lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
–1–

17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)

1

motion to proceed IFP is granted.

2

B.

Sua Sponte Screening

3

Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is

4

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds

5

the Complaint is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may

6

be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.”

7

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001)

8

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

9

Initially, Plaintiff seeks access to certain documents in Defendant’s

10

possession and production of a Vaughn index of documents withheld by Defendant

11

pursuant to FOIA. 1

12

information held by federal agencies, unless the requested material is exempt from

13

mandatory disclosure.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 220–

14

21 (1978). To state a claim under the FOIA, a plaintiff must show “that an agency

15

has (1) ‘improperly’; (2) ‘withheld’; (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reporters

16

Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. §

17

552(a)(4)(B)). Here, there is no allegation that Defendant improperly withheld any

18

agency records when requested by Plaintiff in a timely fashion. Rather, Plaintiff

19

merely seeks certain documents in Defendant’s possession, where “[t]he precise

20

documents to which [P]laintiff seeks access are contained in an online request dated

21

April 1, 2016 to the Indian Affairs FOIA Office[.]” (Compl.) Moreover, Plaintiff

The FOIA “provides for the mandatory disclosure of

22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The term “Vaughn Index” originated from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.
Cir. 1973), where the court rejected an agency’s conclusory affidavit to the effect
that requested FOIA documents were subject to exemption. “The purpose of a
Vaughn Index is ‘to afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest,
and the district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the
withholding.’” Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d
1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir.
1991)).
–2–

17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)

1

requests production of a Vaughn Index, contending “[it] would be particularly useful

2

in sharpening the issues and permitting the plaintiff to test the bases for the

3

government’s exemption claims.” (Id.) This is insufficient to state a claim under

4

the FOIA. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint without

5

prejudice.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)