Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02227/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02227-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information Act

---

1 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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 

TRAVIS MORGAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No.: 17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 

No. 21] AND DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 26] 

 Before the Court are plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and defendant’s 

Opposition thereto [Doc. Nos. 21, 27]; and defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and plaintiff’s 

Opposition thereto [Doc. Nos. 26, 29]. Defendant also filed a Reply in Support of the 

Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 32]. For the reasons outlined more fully below, IT IS 

RECOMMENDED that the District Court DENY plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and request for entry of a default judgment [Doc. No. 21] and GRANT 

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26]. 

Background

 The Complaint alleges that plaintiff made a request for documents to defendant 

Social Security Administration (SSA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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 request was assigned number SSA-2017-000461. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 2.] According to 

the Complaint, defendant SSA either ignored his request, delayed release of responsive 

documents, and/or refused to disclose the requested documents. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 2.] As 

a result, the Complaint seeks an order requiring defendant to release all documents 

responsive to FOIA Request No. SSA-2017-000461. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 2.] 

 Plaintiff later filed a Motion to Amend. [Doc. No. 16.] In this Motion, plaintiff 

requested leave to amend his Complaint so that he could add the following FOIA requests 

that defendant allegedly “ignored”: 

 FOIA Request SSA-2017-000460 Filed on 2017-07-03 

 FOIA Request SSA-2018-001063 Filed on 2018-01-03 

 FOIA Appeal SSA-2017-001116 Filed on 2017-08-24 

 FOIA Request SSA-2018-001405 Filed on 2018-01-31 

 FOIA Appeal SSA-2018-001495 Filed on 2018-02-08 

[Doc. No. 16, at p. 2.] 

 The District Court granted plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint to add 

the above-listed FOIA requests. [Doc. No. 18, at p. 1.] Local Rule 15.1(b) states as 

follows: “If the court grants the motion [to amend a pleading], the moving party must 

file and serve the amended pleading.” CivLR15.1(b). However, to date, plaintiff has not 

filed or served an amended complaint. “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally 

construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. . . .’” Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Therefore, for purposes of analysis, this Court will assume that 

plaintiff’s Complaint has been amended to include the above-listed FOIA requests. 

Discussion

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

 Plaintiff filed a two-page Motion for Summary Judgment which cites “FRCP 56” 

and generally repeats his allegation that defendant “willfully avoided responding” to his 

FOIA requests. [Doc. No. 21, at p. 2.] Plaintiff did not cite any portions of the record 

or submit any evidence in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. In Opposition 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

to plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant refers the Court to its Motion to 

Dismiss, and argues that summary judgment is not appropriate in this case because 

plaintiff’s FOIA claims are moot so the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. 

No. 27, at p. 3.] 

 The "purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the 

proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. 

Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted). “The court 

shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial 

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,” and identifying 

the parts of the record, such as depositions, documents, affidavits or declarations, 

demonstrating “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “If a moving party fails to carry its initial burden of 

production, the nonmoving party has no obligation to produce anything, even if the 

nonmoving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & 

Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-1103 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 In a FOIA action, the defendant government agency bears the burden of 

demonstrating that it conducted a “search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant 

documents.” Zemansky v. United States Envtl Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 

1985). To establish the adequacy of a search, the defendant “may rely upon reasonably 

detailed, non-conclusory affidavits submitted in good faith.” Id. The defendant also 

bears the burden of establishing that an exemption applies to any responsive documents 

that were not disclosed. Dobronski v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 17 F.3d 275, 277 

(9th Cir.1994). 

 Here, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment includes only conclusory 

allegations, such as defendant “willfully avoided responding” to his FOIA requests. 

[Doc. No. 21, at p. 2.] In his Motion, plaintiff does not argue there is no genuine issue of 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

material fact. Nor does he contend he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Doc. 

No. 21, at pp. 1-2.] Plaintiff also did not submit any evidence in support of his Motion 

for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 21, at pp. 1-2.] As a result, he did not meet his initial 

burden under Rule 56(a) to inform the District Court of any viable basis for granting the 

Motion. In other words, there is nothing from which the Court could conclude that 

plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment or summary adjudication in his favor. Under 

these circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that the District Court DENY plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

II. Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of a Default Judgment. 

 In his Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff complains that defendant “failed to 

respond to [the C]omplaint within sixty (60) days of service of summons.” [Doc. No. 21, 

at p. 2.] As a result, plaintiff “demands a Default Judgment be entered.” [Doc. No. 21, at 

p. 2.] 

 When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk 

must enter the party’s default.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). The clerk can enter judgment if the 

plaintiff’s claim “is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by 

computation. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1). “In all other cases, the party must apply to the 

court for a default judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). “A default judgment may be 

entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant 

establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 

55(d). Here, plaintiff did not cite or submit an affidavit or any other evidence in support 

of his request for a default judgment [Doc. No. 21, at p. 2], and, for the reasons outlined 

more fully below, there is simply no basis for the Court to enter a default judgment 

against the defendant in this case. 

 Based on the record, it does not appear that defendant was properly served as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) and 4(m). As this Court reads it, 

Rule 4(i) required plaintiff to serve: (1) “the United States attorney for the district where 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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 action is brought” either by delivery or certified or registered mail to the clerk; (2) the 

Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C. by certified or registered 

mail; and (3) the SSA by registered or certified mail. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i), (B)(2). 

The record indicates plaintiff served the SSA by certified mail on December 20, 2017 

[Doc. No. 14] and then served the Attorney General in Washington, D.C. by certified 

mail on May 23, 2018 [Doc. No. 25]. The record does not indicate plaintiff served the 

United States Attorney as required by Rule 4(i)(1)(A)(i), (ii).

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a defendant to be served 

within 90 days after a complaint is filed unless there is a showing of good cause and the 

Court extends the time. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff filed his FOIA Complaint on 

November 1, 2017. [Doc. No. 1.] The Social Security Administration was served on 

December 20, 2017 [Doc. No. 14], which was within the 90 days required under Rule 

4(m). However, the Attorney General was not served until May 23, 2018 [Doc. No. 25], 

long after the 90 days had expired. In addition, as noted above, the record does not 

indicate plaintiff ever served the United States Attorney. Nor does the record indicate the 

District Court extended time for service upon a showing of good cause. 

 In FOIA cases, the government must “serve an answer or otherwise plead to any 

complaint . . . within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which 

such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown.” 

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(C). Despite the apparent defects in service, defendant did respond 

to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss within 30 days after the Attorney General 

was served in Washington, D.C. [Doc. Nos. 25, 26.] Accordingly, IT IS 

RECOMMENDED that the District Court DENY plaintiff’s request for entry of a default 

judgment against the defendant. 

III. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

A. Standards for Rule 12(b)(1) Motions to Dismiss. 

 Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), defendant argues that the District 

Court should dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint because his FOIA claims are moot and the 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

District Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 26-1, at pp. 1, 5, 15.] 

“Because standing and mootness both pertain to a federal court's subject-matter 

jurisdiction under Article III, they are properly raised in a motion to dismiss under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), not Rule 12(b)(6).” White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 

1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). “Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks can be either facial or 

factual.” Id. If the attack is factual, a District Court “may look beyond the complaint to 

matters of public record without having to convert the motion into one for summary 

judgment.” Id. “It also need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff[’s] allegations.” 

Id.

B. Mootness and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 

 In the Motion to Dismiss, defendant argues that all of the allegations in the 

Complaint and any amendments thereto are moot because it has “fully responded” to all 

of plaintiff’s FOIA requests. [Doc. No. 26-1, at p. 5.] As a result, defendant contends 

that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as there is nothing left to adjudicate. 

[Doc. No. 26-1, at pp. 5, 11.] In support of its Motion to Dismiss, defendant submitted a 

detailed Declaration and exhibits showing its responses to plaintiff’s FOIA requests. 

[Doc. No. 26-2, at pp. 1-9 et seq.] 

 “It has long been settled that a federal court has no authority ‘to give opinions upon 

moot questions’. . . which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. 

[Citations omitted.]” Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 

12, 113 S. Ct. 447, 449, 121 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1992). “For that reason, if an event occurs 

while a case is pending . . . that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual 

relief whatever’ to a prevailing party,” the case “must be dismissed. [Citation omitted.]” 

Id. 

 “In general, when an administrative agency has performed the action sought by a 

plaintiff in litigation, a federal court ‘lacks the ability to grant effective relief,’ and the 

claim is moot. [Citation omitted.]” Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. 

Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009). According to the Ninth Circuit, 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

“production of all nonexempt material, ‘however belatedly,’ moots FOIA claims.” Papa 

v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 

121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982). For example, the plaintiff in Carter v. Veterans 

Administration (VA), 78 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1986), made a FOIA request to the VA for 

copies of certain regulations that pertained to his VA benefits. He then filed a lawsuit in 

District Court when the VA only referred him to a library and did not “send him actual 

copies” of the regulations. Id. at 480. Since the plaintiff’s complaint “sought injunctive 

relief directing the VA to provide the documents he requested,” the Ninth Circuit 

concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint “was mooted when the VA voluntarily mailed 

copies of the regulations to [the plaintiff].” Id. at 1481. 

 “The party alleging mootness bears a ‘heavy burden’ in seeking dismissal. 

[Citation omitted.] It must show that it is ‘absolutely clear’ that the allegedly wrongful 

behavior will not recur if the lawsuit is dismissed.” Rosemere, 581 F.3d at 1173, quoting 

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). 

This burden can be met with affidavits that are “relatively detailed and nonconclusory.” 

Papa v. U.S., 281 F.3d at 1013. An affidavit merely stating that certain documents were 

produced is insufficient. Rather, the affidavit must indicate that all documents have been 

produced and must “detail the methods used to search for documents.” Id. 

 In support of the Motion to Dismiss, defendant submitted the Declaration of 

Monica Chyn, an employee of the SSA who is charged with “reviewing all initial FOIA 

requests and determining whether information should be released to the public.” [Doc. 

No. 26-2, at p. 2.] Ms. Chyn has “personal knowledge of the procedures that the SSA 

employs in handling FOIA requests for records. . . .” [Doc. No. 26-2, at p. 2.] Her 

Declaration includes a detailed account of all of the steps taken by the SSA to respond to 

each of plaintiff’s FOIA requests. As to each and every request, the Declaration indicates 

that the SSA searched appropriately and exhaustively for the documents plaintiff was 

seeking and then sent him copies of all of the responsive documents that were located. 

[Doc No. 26-2, at pp. 2-9.] Exhibits attached to the Declaration include SSA’s responses 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

to all of the above-listed FOIA requests, along with any documents produced in response 

to these requests. [Doc. Nos. 26-3 through 26-16.] There is nothing in the Declaration to 

indicate SSA withheld any responsive documents from production for any reason. 

 Although plaintiff opposes defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on various grounds, he 

essentially concedes that “the alleged violations of FOIA” in his Complaint have 

“apparently been addressed.” [Doc. No. 29, at p. 3.] Plaintiff does not contend that 

defendant failed to respond to any of the above-listed FOIA requests or to produce all 

responsive documents. [Doc. No. 29, at pp. 1-4.] Nor does he argue that any wrongful 

conduct alleged in the Complaint will continue in the future if his FOIA action is 

dismissed. [Doc. No. 29, at pp. 1-4.] Therefore, based on all of the moving, opposing, 

and reply papers submitted, it is this Court’s view that defendant met its burden of 

establishing that all of plaintiff’s FOIA claims against defendant are now moot and 

should be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Court 

GRANT defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 

 In his Opposition to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff does present several 

arguments as to why he believes the District Court should not dismiss his FOIA 

Complaint, but none of these arguments effect this Court’s view that the FOIA Complaint 

should be dismissed as moot and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. First, plaintiff 

refers the Court to another Complaint he filed in Case No. 18cv380-LAB(KSC) to 

challenge the SSA’s denial of his disability benefits (the “disability case”). It is 

plaintiff’s view that the District Court should not dismiss his Complaint in this FOIA 

case, because it is “merged” with the disability case, and the District Court decided the 

two cases should be treated “as a single case.” [Doc. No. 29, at pp. 1-2.] Plaintiff is 

mistaken. These two cases have not been consolidated or “merged” for all purposes as 

plaintiff asserts. 

 The record includes a Report of Clerk and Order of Transfer Pursuant to ‘LowNumber’ Rule, which states that Case No. 18cv380-WQH(NLS) (i.e., the disability case) 

and Case No. 17cv2227-LAB(KSC) (i.e., the FOIA case) “are NOT CONSOLIDATED 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

at this point; all pleadings must still be filed separately in each case.” [Doc. No. 16, 

at p. 1 (emphasis added).] The Order transfers Case No. 18cv380-WQH(NLS) to the 

dockets of District Judge Larry Alan Burns and Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford, 

who were previously assigned to Case No. 17cv2227-LAB(KSC) (i.e., the “low number” 

case). Case No. 18cv380-WQH(NLS) was transferred and re-numbered as 18cv380-

LAB(KSC), because the cases are “related” (i.e., they involve the same parties and 

appeared at the time the transfer was made to possibly involve common issues). This 

transfer was made so that both cases could be considered by the same District Judge and 

Magistrate Judge. As noted above, however, the cases have not been consolidated to be 

handled as a single case and they do not involve common issues. The disability case 

(18cv380-LAB(KSC)) seeks judicial review of the SSA’s denial of disability benefits to 

plaintiff, and the FOIA case (17cv2227-LAB(KSC)) only seeks an order compelling 

production of documents maintained in the SSA’s administrative records that plaintiff 

believes he needs to challenge the denial of disability benefits by the SSA. In short, there 

is no reason for the Court to address the two cases together, and the dismissal of this case 

would have no impact on the resolution of the related disability case. 

 Second, plaintiff argues that the District Court should deny defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss, because he “fears that the dismissal of even a portion of [the FOIA case] may 

lead to the prohibition and/or denial of his ability to use the defendant-supplied evidence 

in his arguments [in connection with his summary judgment motion in the disability 

case]. [Doc. No. 29, at p. 3.] Although plaintiff’s argument is somewhat unclear, it 

appears he believes he may want to submit some documents produced by the SSA in this 

FOIA case as exhibits to a motion in the disability case (Case No. 18cv380-LAB(KSC)) 

but will be unable to do so if the FOIA case is dismissed. However, as defendant 

contends, any dismissal of the FOIA case for mootness and lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction would not be relevant to whether documents disclosed during the course of 

the FOIA case would be admissible in any other legal proceeding. Therefore, plaintiff’s 

argument does not provide a viable basis for denying defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

 Third, plaintiff argues that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied, 

because a dismissal would harm his “ability to recover damages” from defendant. [Doc. 

No. 29, at p. 3.] However, “[p]laintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages for 

violations of FOIA because 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) authorizes only injunctive relief.”1

 

Cornucopia Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 560 F.3d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 2009). See also

Johnson v. City of Shorewood, Minnesota, 360 F.3d 810, 816 (8th Cir. 2004); Johnson v. 

Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Comm'r, 

239 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1138 (W.D. Wash. 2002). In other words, plaintiff’s argument 

does not provide a viable basis for denying defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Since 

plaintiff has not presented a viable or legal basis for denying defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss, the Court reiterates its recommendation that the District Court GRANT 

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

B. Request for Dismissal of Improper Individual Defendant.

 In the Motion to Dismiss, defendant also seeks dismissal of Nancy Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of the SSA, because individual government officials cannot be 

sued under FOIA. [Doc. No. 26-1, at p. 4.] Defendant is correct. The Ninth Circuit has 

held that “individual officials are not proper defendants in a FOIA action.” Yagman v. 

Pompeo, 868 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2017), citing Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 

785-786 (9th Cir. 2011). It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the District Court 

GRANT defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to individual defendant Nancy Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of the SSA. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

                                               

1

 The Ninth Circuit also held that “a pro se litigant may not recover attorney’s fees 

under the FOIA.” Carter v. Veterans Admin., 78 F.2d at 1481. Although “a pro se 

litigant may, as a prevailing party, recover all costs reasonably incurred” (id. at 1482), 

any request for costs would be “ancillary to the underlying action and survive 

independently under the court’s equitable jurisdiction.” Id. at 1481. 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
11 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

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

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Court 

issue an order: 

(1) DENYING plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, because plaintiff did not 

meet his initial burden of identifying portions of the record to establish there are no genuine 

issues of material fact [Doc. No. 21]; 

(2) DENYING plaintiff’s request for entry of a default judgment against defendant 

because, defendant responded to the Complaint despite inadequate service of process [Doc. 

No. 21]; 

(3) GRANTING defendant’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s FOIA claim as moot and 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because defendant completed reasonable searches of 

its records, appropriately responded to all of plaintiff’s FOIA requests, and produced all 

responsive documents that were located; and 

(4) GRANTING defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Nancy Berryhill, Acting 

Commissioner of SSA, because she is an improper individual defendant. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Judge pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), and Civil Local Rules 

72.1(d) and HC.2 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of this Report and 

Recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections. . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

636(b)(1). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of this Court order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2019 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 38 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11