Chavez Garcia v. DEA et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 3/19/2018.Mailed notice (nsf, )
UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL CHAVEZ GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
and UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE
UNITED STATES DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17 C 6136
Hon. Marvin E. Aspen
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Samuel Chavez Garcia filed this tort action to recover damages for injuries
caused by unknown officers of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”).
He also seeks to ascertain the identities of those officers through an Administrative Procedure
Act (“APA”) claim against Defendant DEA. 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Presently before us is
DEA’s motion to dismiss Count VIII for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim for which relief can be granted. (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 7).) For the reasons
stated below, we grant DEA’s motion to dismiss Count VIII without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, we accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true and draw all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Katz-Crank v. Haskett, 843 F.3d 641, 646
(7th Cir. 2016). Chavez Garcia alleges that on August 29, 2016, while he stood in the entrance
of a multi-unit commercial building he owned at 2500 West 51st Street in Chicago, Illinois,
multiple plain-clothed law enforcement officers grabbed him, threw him to the ground,
handcuffed him, searched his phone, and questioned him while he laid face down on the
sidewalk. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) ¶¶ 7–14.) Chavez Garcia claims that during the incident the
officers tore his left rotator cuff and caused “other physical and emotional injuries.” (Id. ¶¶ 12.)
After questioning Chavez Garcia for approximately two hours, at times with an officer’s foot
placed on his face, the officers removed the handcuffs and let him leave. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) The
officers never identified themselves, but Chavez Garcia recognized the officers as DEA agents
after seeing the initials “DEA” on officers’ clothing and hearing one of them shout “federales.”
(Id. ¶ 18.)
In late June 2017, Chavez Garcia’s filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request
seeking any “reports regarding this incident” that identify the DEA agents involved in his
questioning on August 29, 2016.1 (See FOIA Request (Dkt. No. 11–1); Compl. ¶ 57.) On
July 10, 2017, DEA FOIA Unit Chief Katherine L. Myrick responded to Chavez Garcia’s FOIA
request explaining that the DEA searched its records but was “unable to locate any records
responsive to your request” that were not excluded from FOIA for being a law enforcement or
national security record. (FOIA Response (Dkt. No. 11–2).) In the response, Myrick explicitly
notified Chavez Garcia of his rights to “administratively appeal” the decision “by writing to the
Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice . . . within 90
days.” (Id.) Chavez Garcia does not allege in his complaint that he administratively appealed
the DEA’s FOIA Response.
Chavez Garcia filed the instant complaint on August 23, 2017, including a number of tort
claims under state and federal law and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
In the complaint, Chavez Garcia alleges that he sent a request to the DEA on June 30, 2017.
(Compl. ¶ 57.) However, DEA provided a copy of Chavez Garcia’s FOIA request that indicates
the request was filed on June 23, 2017. (FOIA Request (Dkt. No. 10 Ex. 1).) Both parties agree
that Chavez Garcia filed a FOIA request in late June 2017; the exact date on which Chavez
Garcia filed his request is irrelevant to our analysis.
1
2
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). (Id. ¶¶ 5–6, 57.) 2 As relevant to this motion,
Chavez Garcia’s only asserted a single claim against the DEA seeking a declaratory judgment
compelling the DEA to produce the documents and agent identities Chavez Garcia requested in
his June 2017 FOIA request (Count VIII). (Id. ¶¶ 53–57.) On November 27, 2017, Defendant
DEA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6). (Mot. at 1.)
ANALYSIS
In its motion to dismiss, the DEA argues that Count VIII of Chavez Garcia’s complaint
must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. (Mot. at 1.) The DEA initially argued that Chavez Garcia cannot sue the
DEA, a federal agency, because Chavez Garcia did not present an exception to federal agencies’
sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). (Id. ¶ 5.) In response,
Chavez Garcia admits that the FTCA does not apply because Count VIII does not allege a tort
claim, and clarifies that he only sued the DEA to obtain information about the August 29, 2016
incident. (Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss (“Resp.”) (Dkt. No. 10) at 3.) Because the parties agree the
FTCA does not apply, we do not address the DEA’s FTCA arguments.3
The DEA nevertheless argues Count VIII must be dismissed because Chavez Garcia does
not present an exception to the DEA’s sovereign immunity under the APA as there was no “final
2
The complaint includes seven tort claims against the unknown agents, including warrantless
entry, unlawful detention, illegal use of force, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and false imprisonment (Counts I–VII). (Compl. ¶¶ 21–52.) As the tort claims are only
against the agents individually, they are not presently at issue.
3
We do observe, however, that the FTCA provides relief only for tort claims seeking monetary
damages and thus does not apply to Count VIII, which is a declaratory judgment claim.
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (extending exclusive jurisdiction to district courts for suits against federal
agencies involving civil tort claims seeking money damages); Clark v. United States,
326 F.3d 911, 914 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming that the FTCA only applies to tort claims).
3
agency action, and there are adequate remedies outside of the APA.” (Reply to Mot. to Dismiss
(“Reply”) (Dkt. No. 11) at 1–2.) In his complaint, Chavez Garcia requests we enter a declaratory
judgment under the APA ordering the DEA to identify the agents involved in his detention or he
“will be severely prejudiced” in the pursuit of his tort claims. (Compl. ¶ 57.)
A. Legal Standard
We analyze the DEA’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
For an APA claim against a federal agency, a final agency action is a jurisdictional requirement
when “a statute or the agency’s rules require exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review.”
Glisson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 55 F.3d 1325, 1327–28 (7th Cir. 1995). Because FOIA requires
exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial review of an agency action, a final agency
action is a jurisdictional element for APA claims challenging FOIA requests. Nelson v. U.S.
Army, No. 12 C 4718, 2013 WL 5376650, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2013) (“FOIA requires the
completion of the administrative appeal process prior to judicial review.”); see also Gale v. U.S.
Gov’t, 786 F. Supp. 697, 699 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 1990) (holding that FOIA requires exhaustion of
remedies) (internal citation omitted). We thus analyze the motion to dismiss as a jurisdictional
matter.
Rule 12(b)(1) requires dismissal of claims over which the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. See In re Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 794 F.2d 1182, 1188
(7th Cir. 1986) (noting jurisdiction must be conferred upon a federal court). The purpose of a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is to decide the adequacy of the complaint, not the merits
of the case. See Gibson v. City of Chi., 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990); see also
Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322, 325 (7th Cir. 1988) (quoting Crawford v. United States,
796 F.2d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 1986)) (noting that when a motion to dismiss argues both lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, a district court “is obliged to resolve [the
4
jurisdictional issue] before proceeding to the merits”). A plaintiff faced with a 12(b)(1) motion
to dismiss bears the burden of establishing that the jurisdictional requirements have been
met. Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir. 2015). Finally, in reviewing a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), we may properly consider all exhibits attached to the DEA’s
motion to dismiss and reply. United Transp. Union v. Gateway W. Ry. Co., 78 F.3d 1208, 1210
(7th Cir. 1996) (noting the court may look beyond the complaint to other evidence submitted by
the parties to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists).
B. Administrative Procedures Act
The APA provides an exception to federal agency sovereign immunity by allowing an
individual to seek judicial review of an agency decision. 5 U.S.C. § 702. However, to establish
subject matter jurisdiction under the APA, plaintiff must show (1) that he or she obtained a final
agency action, and (2) that no other adequate remedy is available in a court. Id. § 704; see also
Id. § 551(6), (13) (defining an “agency action” under the APA as an agency “order” that is in
turn defined as “the whole or a part of a final disposition, whether affirmative, negative,
injunctive, or declaratory in form, of an agency in a matter”) (emphasis added). The DEA argues
that Chavez Garcia has satisfied neither requirement under the APA. (Reply at 2.)
The DEA correctly argues that Chavez Garcia did not receive a final agency action from
the DEA, precluding Chavez Garcia from seeking judicial review of the request for information
made in his FOIA request under the APA. (Reply at 2–3.) Under FOIA, if an agency denies an
initial request, the requestor has the right “to appeal to the head of the agency” and “to seek
dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency or the Office of
Government Information Services.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(III). If an individual receives an
adverse determination after the one-step appeal process, that individual has exhausted
administrative remedies and has obtained a final agency action for which he or she can seek
5
judicial review. Id. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii); see Nelson, 2013 WL 5376650, at *8 (holding that “FOIA
requires the completion of the administrative appeals process prior to judicial review”).
In this case, Chavez Garcia did not exhaust the available administrative remedies under
FOIA and, as a result, failed to obtain a final agency decision. See Evans v. U.S. Dep’t of
Interior, 135 F. Supp. 3d 799, 821–22 (N.D. Ind. 2015) (“[A]n agency can enforce its
requirement that a requester timely exhaust his or her appeals.”) (citing Wilbur v. C.I.A.,
355 F.3d 675, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a requester under FOIA must file an
administrative appeal within the time limit specified in an agency’s FOIA regulations or face
dismissal of any lawsuit complaining about the agency’s response.”)). It is uncontested that
Chavez Garcia did not timely appeal the DEA’s FOIA decision, despite the DEA’s FOIA Chief
detailing the agency’s review procedures for him in its response. Therefore, he has not obtained
a final agency action. Without a final agency action under FOIA, Chavez Garcia cannot
maintain a claim against the DEA under the APA.
We also must dismiss Count VIII against the DEA because Chavez Garcia cannot bring a
claim under the APA when an adequate remedy exists. “[U]nder the APA, judicial review is
appropriate for an agency action only when ‘there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’”
Walsh v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 400 F.3d 535, 537 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 175, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161, 1167 (1997)). Although the
deadline for review of his July 2017 FOIA request has passed, the DEA argues Chavez Garcia
could file a second FOIA request seeking the same information and exhaust agency review if his
request is again denied. (Reply at 3.) Accordingly, an adequate remedy exists under FOIA:
Chavez Garcia could file another FOIA request with the DEA seeking the identities of the
unidentified DEA agents, and if the request is again denied, seek administrative review within 90
days of the entry of the decision. If the DEA again refuses to provide the requested documents,
6
Chavez Garcia can file a suit under FOIA for judicial review of the propriety of the DEA’s
withholding of the requested records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), (F) (providing federal jurisdiction
to review de novo whether agencies improperly withheld records after a FOIA request).
Accordingly, Chavez Garcia’s claim against the DEA cannot be maintained under the APA
because FOIA provides adequate remedies. See Cent. Platte Natural Res. Dist. v. USDA,
643 F.3d 1142, 1149 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of APA claim where plaintiff sought a
declaratory judgment and court order requiring production of documents under both the APA
and the FOIA); Feinman v. F.B.I., 713 F. Supp. 2d 70, 76 (D.D.C. 2010) (“This Court and others
have uniformly declined jurisdiction over APA claims that sought remedies made available by
FOIA.”) (listing cases).
Because Chavez Garcia has not met his burden of pleading a claim under the APA and
has not alleged any other exception to the DEA’s sovereign immunity, we grant the DEA’s
motion to dismiss Count VIII for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice.
Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 224 (7th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1024 (2014)
(finding that “a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be a dismissal with
prejudice”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the DEA’s motion and dismiss Count VIII without
prejudice. It is so ordered.
____________________________________
Honorable Marvin E. Aspen
United States District Judge
Dated: March 19, 2018
Chicago, Illinois
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?