Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00820/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00820-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER MENDEZ VELASQUEZ, a/k/a

GILBERTO BENITEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-cv-0820-GPC-NLS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

[DKT. NOS. 32, 35, 39]

vs.

DEA HEADQUARTERS UNIT (SARO),

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

KATHERINE L. MYRICK,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

On April 15, 2011, Javier Mendez Velasquez, a.k.a. Gilberto Benitez (“Plaintiff”), filed a

Petition for “Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief” against Defendants Drug Enforcement

Administration Headquarters Unit (“SARO”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and Katherine

L. Myrick (“Myrick”), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (“FOIA”) for

failure to comply with a document request. (Dkt. No. 1.) Presently before the Court is a motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 32.) Plaintiff

opposed the motion, (Dkt. No. 33), and Defendants replied, (Dkt. No. 36). Having considered the

parties’ submissions and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for the

reasons that follow. 

- 1 - 11-cv-0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 44 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 5
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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is currently serving a life sentence at the Soledad Correctional

Facility for possession of marijuana. On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff made a request to the DOJ and the 1

Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) for a copy of the “Laboratory Analysis Comparison

Report” (“the Report”) related to his conviction. Plaintiff received an initial response from the DOJ

on October 28, 2009, providing Plaintiff with a case number. Plaintiff wrote a second letter to the

DEA on November 14, 2009, to notify of an address change and bring attention to the fact that the

October 28th response listed the file number as R6-95-0350 instead of the “right file Laboratory

number” R2-95-0350. Plaintiff’s third and fourth letters, sent on October 19, 2010, and March 24,

2010, were sent to Myrick, the Chief of Freedom of Information Operations Unit for the DEA, 

requesting fee information and inquiring whether she was aware of the incorrect file number in the

October 28, 2009 letter. 

Plaintiff received a response dated April 2, 2012, stating that the DEA located “three pages that

contain information that was furnished by another government agency” and that no further action

would be taken per Plaintiff’s FOIA request. (Dkt. No. 17 at 1-2: 26-28, 1-5.) The DEA referred the

three pages to the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to determine whether the

documents should be released to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 32-1 at 2: 14-15.) On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a Petition for a “Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief” to compel the DEA and Myrick to 2

assist Plaintiff with obtaining the records he had requested, as well as provide an explanation for the

delay. Plaintiff claimed the DEA and Myrick failed to comply with his request for a verified copy of

the Report pursuant to FOIA, citing 5 U.S.C. §552. On April 18, 2012, CBP released three pages of

laboratory test results to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 32 at 3.) Prior to release, the documents were reviewed

by DEA counsel to “insure that [Plaintiff’s] request reasonably describes records, that a search

calculated to uncover all responsive information was performed, and that all releasable information

Unless otherwise noted, all information in the Background section is taken from Plaintiff’s 1

Writ of Mandate. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

Plaintiff filed this action as a “Petition for Writ of Mandate,” however, he is seeking disclosure

2

of federal agency records and compliance pursuant to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §552. Plaintiff

acknowledges this action as a FOIA claim in subsequent pleadings. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 35.) 

- 2 - 11-cv-0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 44 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 5
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

was provided to a requester. If not, action is taken to cure any deficiencies.” (Dkt. No. 32-2 at 3: 1-4.) 

 Upon Defendants’ motion to dismiss for “mootness” and lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

(Dkt. No. 32), Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing his FOIA claim is not moot because the Defendants

released fake documents. (Dkt. No. 33 at ¶ 3.) To support his claim, Plaintiff identifies particular

document discrepancies: Plaintiff states the printed number on the Report is “1” while the number on

the CBP report is “4”; Plaintiff alleges the CBP report contains “altered and enhanced” letters; and

Plaintiff cites discrepancies between signatures of the documents. (Dkt. No. 33 at ¶¶ 2, 4.) Plaintiff

filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing and a motion to appoint a handwriting expert. (Dkt. Nos. 35

and 39.) Defendants filed a reply, again in support of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 36.) Defendants additionallyfiled information compiled byDEA counsel, “[i]n

orderto alleviate [Plaintiff’s] concerns,” and to explain the appearance of the Report. (Dkt. No. 36-1.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)1 permits a party to raise by motion the defense of “lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)1. In this Circuit, a “mootness” claim is properly

raised with a 12(b)(1)motion. See Gemtel Corp. v. CommunityRedevelopment Agency, 23 F.3d 1542,

1544 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding “mootness” and “ripeness” properlychallenged under Rule 12(b)(1)).

A claim is moot when “it has lost its character as a present, live controversy,” for instance, when an

administrative agency has performed the action sought by a plaintiff and the federal court has no

authority grant effective relief. Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d

1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123

(9th Cir. 1997)). The court does not have jurisdiction over a moot claim. Id. 

II. Analysis

A. Appropriate Defendants Under FOIA

FOIA authorizes the district court to “enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and

to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld.” 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B)

(emphasis added). The proper defendant in a FOIA action is the federal agency, not the individual

employees of the agency. Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 832 F.Supp.2d 1095,

- 3 - 11-cv-0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 44 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 5
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

1104 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Myric, as an employee of a government agency, is not a proper defendant to

Plaintiff’s FOIA claim. Plaintiff’s claim against Myric is dismissed. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants claim that because the government has responded to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, there

is nothing left to adjudicate and the action moot. (Dkt. No. 32-1 at 3: 23-25.) Plaintiff claims his

FOIA claim is not moot because the Defendants responded to his request with fake documents. (Dkt.

No. 33 at 5: 8-11.) 

When a person makes a FOIA request to a government agency, it must conduct a good faith,

reasonable search of those systems of records likely to possess the requested information. Lahr v.

NTSB, 569 F.3d 964, 986 (9th Cir. 2009). The agency may prove the reasonableness of its search by

the declaration of a responsible agency official. Id. However, under FOIA, “federal jurisdiction is

dependant on a showing that an agency has (1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency records,” not on

the reasonableness of the search. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)

(quoting Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980)). A

district court may only order the production of agency records, nothing more. Id. In Sanders v.

Obama, the plaintiff’s FOIA action ultimately requested the court to “determine the truth as to whether

the documents requested actually existed or not, and to determine the authenticity of the disclosed

documents that the [p]laintiff believe[d] are forgeries.” 729 F. Supp. 2d 148, 158 (D.D.C. 2010) aff'd

sub nom. Sanders v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 10-5273, 2011 WL1769099 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2011). The

court found that any judicial inquiry into whether the agency documents were forged was improper

because the “[c]ourt’s remedial powers are limited to injunctive relief to remedy the improper

withholding of agency records, [internal citation omitted], not determine the authenticity of the

produced documents . . . .” Id. at 158. Thus, once the requested records have been produced, there

is no longer a live case or controversy and the FOIA action becomes moot. Spencer v. Kemna, 523

U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

To the extent Plaintiff indirectly challenges the reasonableness of the Defendants’ document

search by alleging the produced documents are fake, the Defendants have properly responded. The

court in Lahr held the agency must conduct a good faith, reasonable search for requested documents -

- 4 - 11-cv-0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 44 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 5
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

the reasonableness of which may be shown by declaration from a responsible official. Here, the

attorney responsible for matters involving FOIA claims submitted a declaration of assurance that a

reasonable search was conducted pursuant to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, as well as an explanation for

the appearance of the Report. As noted in Sanders, the Court cannot compel nor engage in any further

action regarding the authenticity of the documents because it lacks jurisdiction to make this

determination. 

The documents requested by Plaintiff have been produced by the CBP, upon referral from the

DEA, pursuant to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. The Court cannot provide relief to remedy the improper

withholding of documents when the responsive agency records have already been produced. As such,

Plaintiff’s claim is moot and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s motions for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of a handwriting expert

are also not within the authority of the Court’s remedial powers under the FOIA as they seek to

determine authenticity, not compel delivery of improperly withheld agency records. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court herebyGRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s FOIA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Dkt. No. 32.) 

Plaintiff’s FOIA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant Myrick. Plaintiff’s

Motions for Evidentiary Hearing and Appointment of Handwriting Expert are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Dkt. Nos. 35 and 39.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - 11-cv-0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 44 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 5