Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04257/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04257-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Thomas L. Kehmeier, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States Department of Justice Tax 

Division, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-4257-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

 

 Defendant U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division (“DOJ”) moved to dismiss 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the Court does not have subject 

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff Thomas Kehmeier’s complaint. (Doc. 9) Because the 

Court agrees with this analysis, DOJ’s motion will be granted. This Court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and, with the parties’ consent to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

 Background. Kehmeier, an experienced pro per litigant1

, submitted the following 

request for records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”): 

All records identifying a federal statute imposing a tax that expressly authorizes the Secretary, under Title 26 U.S.C. § 

3402(a)(1), to prescribe tax tables or computational procedures to use in measuring a tax. 

 

1

 In the District of Arizona alone, Kehmeier has filed three other lawsuits against the United States. Kehmeier v. U.S., 2:16-CV-03318-BSB; Kehmeier v. U.S., 2:13-CV02257-SRB; Kehmeier v. U.S., 2:10-cv-02684-NVW. 

Case 2:16-cv-04257-DKD Document 18 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Doc. 1 at ¶ 5) After DOJ did not respond to his request, Kehmeier filed this suit alleging 

that he is entitled to the requested documents. (Doc. 1) DOJ’s motion to dismiss argues 

that his request is for research not an “agency record” covered by FOIA. (Doc. 9) 

 Analysis. This Court’s jurisdiction over Kehmeier’s complaint “is dependent on a 

showing that an agency has (1) ‘improperly’ (2) ‘withheld’ (3) ‘agency records.’” 

Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kissinger v. Reporters 

Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980)). FOIA does not define 

“agency record.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). However, the case law is clear that “[a]n agency is 

not required to provide copies of federal regulations or perform legal research for the 

requester.” West v. Jackson, 448 F.Supp.2d 207, 212 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Landmark 

Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F.Supp.2d 59, 64 (D.D.C. 2003)). See also Lawyers’ Comm. 

for Civil Rights of San Francisco Bay Area v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 534 F.Supp.2d 

1126, 1135 (N.D.Cal. 2008) (information or answers are not proper FOIA requests); 

Lamb v. I.R.S., 871 F.Supp. 301, 304 (E.D.Mich. 1994) (“requests for legal research” are 

outside the scope of FOIA). 

 DOJ argues that Kehmeier’s request is for research and the Court agrees. The 

request is for “records identifying a federal statute.” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 5) This “seem[s] to be 

nothing more than an effort to secure legal research regarding the Internal Revenue Code 

from the I.R.S.” Hudgins v. I.R.S., 620 F.Supp. 19, 21 (D.C.D.C., 1985). This is outside 

the scope of FOIA and, accordingly, outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. 

 Conclusion. Because Kehmeier’s requested documents were not “agency 

records,” the Court does not have jurisdiction over his complaint and it must be 

dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss For Lack 

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is granted. (Doc. 9) 

 Dated this 17th day of February, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-04257-DKD Document 18 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 2