Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02941/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02941-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

15cv2941-AJB-JLB

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

JESUS ESTEVEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S 

OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 15cv2941-AJB-JLB

ORDER GRANTING 

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

(Doc. No. 35)

Presently before the Court is Respondents United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of California, Federal Bureau of Prison, Western Regional Office, and 

the United States Marshal for the Southern District of California’s (collectively referred to 

as “Respondents”) motion to dismiss Petitioner Jesus Estevez’s (“Petitioner”) Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) and Privacy Act claims against nine individual respondents.

(Doc. No. 35.) Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court finds this motion suitable 

for determination on the papers and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local 

Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS Respondents’

motion.

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-02941-AJB-JLB Document 38 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15cv2941-AJB-JLB

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

On March 21, 2017, Petitioner filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 

33.) In addition to Petitioner’s previous claims that he is being denied access to records 

under the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the California Public Records Act, Petitioner also 

names nine new individual respondents: Laura E. Duffy; Crystaline Smith; Susan B. 

Gerson; Dennis M. Wong; Angela C. Brooks; William E. Bordley; Sean O’Neill; Christina 

D. Troiani; and Thomas D. Anderson (collectively referred to as “Individual 

Respondents”). (Id. at 1, 5.) On March 29, 2017, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the 

Individual Respondents with prejudice. (Doc. No. 35.) Petitioner filed a non-opposition to

Respondents’ motion on April 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 37.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack 

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” 

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citation omitted). However, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this determination, a court reviews the 

contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l 

League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). 

DISCUSSION

Respondents request that Petitioner’s FOIA and Privacy Act claims against the 

Individual Respondents be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 35-1 at 2.) Respondents 

predicate this assertion on the fact that neither the FOIA nor the Privacy Act allows suits 

Case 3:15-cv-02941-AJB-JLB Document 38 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15cv2941-AJB-JLB

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 be brought against individuals. (Id.) In response, Petitioner does not oppose 

Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Individual Respondents. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.)

The Court finds Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Individual Respondents to be 

appropriate. See Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 785 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the 

“FOIA does not apply to any of the [d]efendants because they are all individuals, not 

agencies”); see also L.A. Times Commc’n, LLC v. Dept. of the Army, 442 F. Supp. 2d 880, 

892 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (stating that the FOIA provides individuals with a “judiciallyenforceable right of access to government agency documents”) (emphasis added) (citation 

omitted); Rouse v. U.S. Dept. of State, 567 F.3d 408, 414 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the 

Privacy Act can only be used when an agency fails to maintain any record concerning any 

individual) (emphasis added); Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1377 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(holding that the Privacy Act only authorizes suit against an “agency”). Accordingly,

finding that no plausible legal claim under the FOIA or the Privacy Act may be asserted

against the Individual Respondents, the Court GRANTS Respondents’ motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth more fully above, the Court GRANTS Respondents’

motion to dismiss Petitioner’s claims under the FOIA and the Privacy Act against the 

Individual Respondents WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02941-AJB-JLB Document 38 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3