KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 68

MOTION to Dismiss (The Government Defendants' Partial Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum in Support) by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs,
)
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
v.
)
)
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs,
)
1:13-cv-00881-RJL
)
v.
)
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
This case is before the Court on the motion of defendants Barack Obama,
President of the United States, Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, and General
Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), insofar as they are sued in
their official capacities, together with defendants NSA and the United States Department of
Justice (collectively, the “Government Defendants”), to dismiss certain claims asserted in the
amended complaints in Klayman v. Obama, Civil Action No. 13-0851 (Klayman I), and Klayman
v. Obama, Civil Action No. 13-0881 (Klayman II).
The Court having considered the Government Defendants’ submission in support of their
motion and any submissions in opposition thereto,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Government Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED.

2.

The following claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice, as against the Government
Defendants:
(a)

Plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims that the challenged
NSA intelligence programs exceed the Government’s statutory authority;

(b)

Plaintiffs’ challenge to the alleged collection of the content of their
communications under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), and Plaintiffs’ request for prospective relief from
a program, discontinued in 2011, involving the collection of certain
Internet metadata;

(c)

Plaintiffs’ Stored Communications Act (SCA) claims; and

(d)

Plaintiffs’ common-law tort claims.

So ORDERED this __________ day of _______________, 2014.

__________________________________
HON. RICHARD J. LEON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2