Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00792-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DUNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELINDA HAAG,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00792-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

RE: ECF NO. 66

Before the Court is Defendant Melinda Haag‟s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the alternative, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

ECF No. 66. The Court grants the motion without leave to amend. 

I. BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff Michael Dunn, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint “for 

pervasive constitutional due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel and lying 

prosecutor.” ECF No. 1. The Complaint names Melinda Haag, a former United States Attorney 

for the Northern District of California, as a defendant. Id. at 2. Several other defendants named in 

the initial complaint have been dismissed.1 Although the allegations in the Complaint are at times 

difficult to follow, Plaintiff‟s complaint against Defendant Haag appears to be for mishandling his 

request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with the United States Attorney for the Northern District of 

California, which that office received on November 20, 2014. ECF No. 1 at 5, Ex. G. Defendant 

Haag, acting in her capacity as an employee for the United States Attorney, sent Plaintiff a letter 

 

1

See ECF No. 52 (Dunn v. Peterson, Case No. 16-cv-00792-JST, 4427213 WL 2016, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 22, 2016)). Plaintiff filed an appeal as to those defendants on September 26, 2016. 

Case 3:16-cv-00792-JST Document 77 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on February 6, 2015, acknowledging the receipt of his request and informing Plaintiff that the 

request had been forwarded to the United States Department of Justice, Freedom of 

Information/Privacy Act Unit in Washington, D.C. “for official processing.” Id.2 On April 22, 

2015, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys sent Plaintiff a letter acknowledging 

receipt of his FOIA request on April 2, 2015 and explained how it would be processed. ECF No. 

1-1 at 16. The letter explained that most FOIA requests are processed within one month, or 

twenty working days. Id. 

On or about September 1, 2015, Plaintiff received an update from the Executive Office for 

United States Attorneys indicating that it was “awaiting a response from the local U.S. Attorney‟s 

Office.” ECF No. 1-1 at17, Ex. J. On or about December 3, 2015, Plaintiff received a final 

response to his FOIA request indicating that all of the records he sought were “being made 

available to” him. Id. at 18, Ex. K. 

Plaintiff alleges that the United States Attorney‟s office had “thrown away” his FOIA 

request and that Defendant Haag had treated his inquiry “with disdain.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff 

alleged that he made a FOIA inquiry with her on August 4, 2015 and “it took 8 months to get my 

FOIA replied to and only hours to get the information as response dated 12/3/15 revealed feds had 

kept none of guns.” ECF No. 1 at 5. 

On November 18, 2016, Defendant Haag filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which motion 

the Court now considers. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion to 

Dismiss. ECF No. 70.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motions to Dismiss 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While a complaint need not 

contain detailed factual allegations, facts pleaded by a plaintiff must be “enough to raise a right to 

 

2 Defendant explains that a prior acknowledgement letter sent to Plaintiff was returned. ECF No. 

66 at 3 (citing ECF No. 1, Ex. G). 

Case 3:16-cv-00792-JST Document 77 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To 

survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that, 

when accepted as true, states a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009). In determining whether a plaintiff has met this plausibility standard, the Court must 

accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). If a plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring a suit, the federal 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the suit must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). 

Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004). “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional 

attack may be facial or factual. In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations 

contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for 

Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). In resolving a facial 

attack, the court assumes that the allegations are true and draws all reasonable inferences in the 

plaintiff's favor. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

“In resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may review evidence beyond 

the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The 

court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations. Once the moving party has 

converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence 

properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other 

evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Safe Air, 373 

F.3d at 1039 (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Claim Against Defendant Haag

Defendant Haag correctly argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff‟s claim 

against her under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522 (“FOIA”), because FOIA only 

confers jurisdiction on claims against federal “agencies,” see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and not 

Case 3:16-cv-00792-JST Document 77 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

natural persons such as Haag. See Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control v. 

Department of State, 818 F. Supp. 1291, 1294 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (“[O]nly agencies are proper 

parties to FOIA actions.”). Defendant Haag was acting in her capacity as an employee for the 

United States Attorney and, therefore, is not a proper party for suit pursuant to FOIA. The Court 

therefore grants the motion as to Defendant Haag and dismisses her as a defendant. 

B. Claim Against the United States Attorney

When plaintiffs appear pro se, the Court must construe their pleadings liberally. Balistreri 

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990). A pro se complaint will be dismissed 

only if it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Pena v. Gardner, 967 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir.1992) 

(internal citations omitted); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting

Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027, n.1 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc)) (“our „obligation‟ remains, 

„where the petitioner is pro se ... to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the 

benefit of any doubt”). However, the Court may not “supply essential elements of the claim that 

were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir.1982); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (“Although we 

construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure”). 

The Court will construe the Complaint as against the United States Attorney, rather than 

Haag, because Plaintiff‟s Complaint references the prolonged delay between his inquiry and the 

actions of the United States Attorney in providing the requested documents.

1. Claim Against The United States Attorney Is Moot

The elements of a FOIA claim are (1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency records. Young 

v. Kietz, No. 114CV01471LJOSAB, 2014 WL 12576241, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2014). For 

specific FOIA requests, a complaint is moot if the agency has produced all requested records. 

Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 811 F.3d 1086, 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (“For 

specific FOIA request claims, after the agency produces all non-exempt documents and the court 

confirms the agency‟s proper invocation of an exemption, the specific FOIA claim is moot 

because the injury has been remedied.”). Plaintiff does not contend that the United State Attorney 

Case 3:16-cv-00792-JST Document 77 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

withheld any of the records he requested. Plaintiff, in fact, acknowledges that he received a final 

response to his FOIA request. ECF No. 1 at 19-22, Ex. K. Instead, Plaintiff‟s Complaint concerns 

only the delay he experienced in receiving his requested documents. The Court concludes

Plaintiff‟s claim against the United States Attorney is moot, despite the alleged time delay,

because the agency produced the records Plaintiff requested.

2. FOIA Does Not Provide For Monetary Damages

Even if Plaintiff‟s claim were not moot, Defendant Haag correctly argues that “FOIA does 

not provide a private right of action for monetary damages, which the plaintiff appears to be 

seeking here.” ECF No. 66 at 6. “There is no provision under FOIA which provides for an award 

of money damages for alleged wrongs by federal agencies.” Gasparutti v. United States, 22 F. 

Supp. 2d 1114, 1117 (C.D. Cal. 1998); see also O'Toole v. I.R.S., 52 Fed. Appx. 961, 962 (9th Cir. 

2002) (“O'Toole failed to state a valid FOIA claim because he requested only monetary damages 

in this action, and the statute does not authorize such relief. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).”) 

Plaintiff here seeks $600,000 in monetary damages, which are not recoverable by a FOIA claim. 

ECF. No. 1 at 11.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Haag and as construed against the 

United States Attorney. The Court also concludes that amendment would be futile because the 

Court lacks jurisdiction as to Defendant Haag, and Plaintiff‟s cannot state a claim against the 

United States Attorney. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion with prejudice. See Reddy v.

Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (“It is not an abuse of discretion to deny 

leave to amend when any proposed amendment would be futile.”). 

The Clerk will close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2017

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00792-JST Document 77 Filed 03/02/17 Page 5 of 5