Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01979/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01979-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN B. GERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPALINT 

AGAINST DEFENDANT EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEYS, AND (2) TO DISMISS ALL 

OTHER DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 10)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

(14) DAYS

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. (ECF Nos. 3 & 9.)

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1), and dismissed it for failure 

to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff then filed the first 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) 

On September 19, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, 

and found that it stated a cognizable FOIA claim against the Executive Office for United 

States Attorneys, but no cognizable claim against any other defendant. (ECF No. 11.) 

The Court ordered Plaintiff, within thirty days, to either file an amended complaint or 

Case 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS Document 13 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 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

2

notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his FOIA claim against the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s 

September 19, 2014 order and, on October 31, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 

cause why all defendants other than the Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 12.) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond 

to the order to show cause would result in a recommendation that the remaining 

defendants be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause and the 

deadline for doing so has passed.

As explained in the September 19, 2014 screening order (ECF No. 11), Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint states a cognizable FOIA claim against the Executive Office for 

United States Attorneys, but no other cognizable claim.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff should proceed on the first amended complaint FOIA claim against 

Defendant Executive Office for United States Attorneys;

2. All other claims asserted in the first amended complaint and all other named 

Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice;

3. Service should be initiated on the following Defendant:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

4. The Clerk of the Court should send Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one (1) 

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, 

and a copy of the first amended complaint, filed September 8, 2104;

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption of these Findings and 

Recommendations, Plaintiff should complete and return to the Court the notice 

of submission of documents along with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for the Defendant listed above,

Case 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS Document 13 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 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

3

c. Two copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed September 8, 

2014, and 

6. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court should direct the 

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

The Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the Findings and Recommendation, the 

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond 

to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being 

served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS Document 13 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 3