Begay v. National Archives and Record Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IVAN RAY BEGAY,

Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 21-782 (TJK) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, sues Defendant for release of information related to his decades-old criminal prosecution. He brings claims under the First Amendment and the Freedom of Information Act. Defendant moves to dismiss the First Amendment claim and Plaintiff’s requests for certain remedies. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion in part by dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim and striking his jury demand, and otherwise deny it.

Background In 2001, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and four counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(2). ECF No. 9 at 2 (citing United States v. Begay, 10-cv-08221, ECF No. 6 (D. Ariz. Feb. 16, 2011)). Seventeen years later, he sued the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ECF No. 9 at 4. Plaintiff alleged that EOUSA was improperly withholding biological evidence related to his criminal prosecution. Id. EOUSA moved for summary judgment and noted that Plaintiff’s criminal case file was “housed at the Federal Records Center of the National Archives due to the age of the case.” The court granted EOUSA’s motion for summary judgment after Plaintiff failed to respond. Id.

Plaintiff then brought this suit. ECF No. 1. He seeks relief under FOIA and alleges that Defendant violated his First Amendment right to petition the government. Id. He asks the Court, among other things, to order Defendant to “release, test, and reproduce information” sought in his FOIA request, “test Mr. Begay’s Biological Swab containing Alcohol/Marijuana compounds,” and pay “one million dollars in compensatory damages.” Id. at Sec. E ¶¶ 1–3, 10. He also asks that the Court appoint him an attorney and demands a jury trial. Id. at 1; Sec. E ¶ 9.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in part. ECF No. 9. Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim and his requests to test certain evidence, appoint him an attorney, and pay him monetary damages. Id. at 6–7. Defendant also argues that the Court should strike Plaintiff’s jury demand. Id. at 1, 7–8.

Legal Standards “A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s complaint; it does not require a court to ‘assess the truth of what is asserted or determine whether a plaintiff has any evidence to back up what is in the complaint.’” Herron v. Fannie Mae, 861 F.3d 160, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must have ‘facial plausibility,’ meaning it must ‘plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must construe the complaint ‘in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.’” Id. (quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). When a plaintiff proceeds pro se “his complaint ‘is to be liberally construed’ and ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Bowman v. Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). In such cases, courts can also consider the plaintiff’s “pro se affidavits and exhibits, as well as public records subject to judicial notice.” Id. “But the Court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff if those inferences are not supported by the facts set out in the complaint, nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast as factual allegations.” Hettinga, 677 F.3d at 476.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes a court to strike “from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” While district courts have broad discretion in this area, “motions to strike, as a general rule, are disfavored.” Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd., 647 F.2d 200, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Analysis A. First Amendment Claim Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible First Amendment claim. “The First Amendment guarantees ‘the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’” McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482 (1985). This right includes, for example, “the right of access to courts for redress of wrongs.” Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 387 (2011). In contrast, FOIA allows the public to obtain government records by making a request to an agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated his petition right because it has not released records he requested. ECF No. 1 Sec. D ¶ 4. But that allegation does not implicate the First Amendment. “There is no constitutional right to have access to particular government information.” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 14 (1978) (plurality opinion) (quoting Stewart, Or of the Press, 26 Hastings L.J. 631, 636 (1975)). This means that “there is no constitutional right to obtain all the information provided by FOIA laws.” McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221, 232 (2013) (rejecting challenge to Virginia FOIA statute). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim is a statutory one about whether he is entitled to all the records he requested, not a constitutional one about his right to petition the government. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.1

B. Jury Trial Demand The Court will strike Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. Under Rule 38(b), a party may demand a jury trial on “any issue triable of right by a jury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). The Constitution’s Seventh Amendment provides a right of jury trial “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 40–41 (1989) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VII). “Suits at common law” refers to suits traditionally heard in courts of law, “as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty.” Id. at 42. In determining whether the Seventh Amendment applies to a statutory action, courts look to comparable 18th-century actions in England and the nature of the remedy sought. Id. Whether the remedy sought is equitable or legal is a more important factor than the cause of action itself. Id.

Defendant is correct that the “Seventh Amendment has no application in actions at law against the Government” because the United States is generally immune from suit. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 162 n.9, 163 (1981); ECF No. 9 at 5–6. But since FOIA only offers equitable remedies, it likely falls outside the Seventh Amendment’s ambit for that reason. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 154 (1980) (“Congress intended federal district courts to retain traditional equitable jurisdiction in adjudicating FOIA actions.”); Johnson, 310 F.3d at 777. And in any event, the statute itself does not provide a jury right. See U.S.C. § 552. For these reasons, Plaintiff has no right to a jury trial. Because he cannot demand one, the Court will strike his jury demand as immaterial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

Conclusion For the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in Part, and to Strike Jury Demand, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The First Amendment claim in Count I of the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Further, Plaintiff’s jury demand is STRICKEN from his complaint.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Timothy J. Kelly TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge Date: October 6, 2021