Henson v. Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Defendants Frederick J. Sadler and Sarah Kotler are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/11/15. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

J. DONALD HENSON, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, FOOD & DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, FEDERICK J.
SADLER, and SARAH KOTLER,

No. 14-cv-908-DRH-DGW

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on defendants Frederick J. Sadler and Sarah
Kotler’s motion to dismiss pursuant to FEDERAL RULES

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 38). Plaintiff timely filed his response opposing
dismissal of the individual parties (Doc. 40). For the reasons stated below, the
Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss.
I.

Introduction and Background

On August 19, 2014, plaintiff J. Donald Henson, Sr. (“Henson”), a former
employee of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), filed this pro se action
against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FDA, and two
individual FDA officials, Frederick J. Sadler and Sarah Kotler, claiming that they
Page 1 of 4

violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552 (Doc. 39). Henson
alleges that the FDA denied the majority of his 46 individual FOIA requests by
failing to properly acknowledge receipt or assign each with a “tractable FOI-ID-#”
(Doc. 39 ¶5). Presently, defendants Frederick J. Sadler and Sarah Kotler move to
dismiss, arguing that that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
FOIA claims against them as individual federal employees (Doc. 38).
II.

Law and Analysis

a. Motion to Dismiss
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of plaintiff’s
complaint. Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir.1990). On a
motion to dismiss, the district court must accept all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and view those allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Gillman v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 878 F.2d 1020, 1022 (7th
Cir.1989).
When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the Claimant.
Alicea–Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir.
2003). Unsupported conclusions of fact and conclusions of law are not admitted.
Watters v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 656 F.2d 234, 240 (7th Cir.1980).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of
Page 2 of 4

Police Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). The Supreme
Court explained in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007),
that Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is warranted if the complaint fails to set forth
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
b. FOIA Claim
FOIA serves the “basic purpose of ensuring an informed citizenry, vital to
the functioning of a democratic society.” Bensman v. United States Forest Serv.,
408 F.3d 945, 958 (7th Cir.2005). FOIA requires federal agencies to make
information available to the public when requested unless the information falls
within one of the specified exemptions. See Enviro Tech Int'l, Inc. v. EPA, 371
F.3d 370, 374 (7th Cir.2004). Furthermore, it gives federal courts authority “to
enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of
any agency records improperly withheld.” GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers
Union of U.S., Inc., 445 U.S. 375, (1980) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)).
Under federal law, civil complaints under FOIA are required to name the
applicable government agency from which a plaintiff seeks relief. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B). Even a pro se plaintiff, who wishes to bring a civil action pursuant to
FOIA, shall adhere to such a rule or face dismissal for failure to state a
claim. Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d at 582.
Similarly, the Seventh Circuit has dismissed Privacy Act claims in
comparable cases where plaintiff’s named individual agency employees as
defendants. See Brown–Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.1983).

Page 3 of 4

The Seventh Circuit specifically stated that “[t]he Privacy Act authorizes private
civil actions for violations of its provisions only against an agency, not against any
individual.”) Id. Accordingly, FOIA does not create a cause of action for a suit
against an individual employee of a federal agency.
As a matter of course, federal agencies unmistakably remain the only
proper defendant to FOIA claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Brown–Bey v.
United States, 720 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.1983); accord Petrus v. Bowen, 833
F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, all claims against Sadler or Kotler
must be dismissed.
III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Doc. 38). Defendants Frederick J. Sadler and Sarah Kotler are
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly at the close of the case.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.04.11
16:48:40 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4