Moynihan v. Washington State Division of Child Support

Filing 2

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

FRANCIS MOYNIHAN, Jr.,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C11-5522BHS

Plaintiff,

10

v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s (“Moynihan”) motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 1. The Court has considered the pleadings
filed in support of this motion and the remainder of the file and dismisses this matter for
lack of jurisdiction and denies as moot Moynihan’s motion to proceed IFP for the reasons
discussed herein.

21

I. DISCUSSION
22
23
24
25
26

The present matter arises out of Moynihan’s complaint that Defendant has not
responded to his records requests under the Washington Public Records Act (“PRA”) and
the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). However, FOIA applies only to
federal agencies; Defendant is a Washington State agency. See 5 U.S.C. § § 552; 552a.

27
28
ORDER - 1

1

Therefore, to the extent Moynihan contends that Defendant violated a federal right

2

under FOIA by not providing him with the requested child support division records, he

3

has failed to state a claim. In short, Defendant’s requests may be proper under the PRA,

4

being that Defendant is a Washington State agency, but are not proper under the FOIA.1

5

In view of this, it is clear that Moynihan cannot state a claim since both he and Defendant

6

are citizens of the same state and he has not alleged a viable federal question. See, e.g., 28

7

U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1332 (diversity of citizenship).

8
9
10
11

II. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Moynihan’s case is DISMISSED and his
motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2011.

12
13
14

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent Moynihan contends he has a constitutional right to Defendant’s
assistance, he has provided no basis for this purported right except his nonexistent federal
right to see the records, and the Court has found no authority establishing such a right.
This is essentially a contention that he has a right to a certain outcome from petitioning
the government. There is no such constitutional right. See Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th
Cir. 1991) (although there certainly is a First Amendment right to petition government for
redress of grievances, there is no right to a response or any particular action).
ORDER - 2