Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01187/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01187-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information Act

---

– 1 – 17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)

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

EMILIO REYES,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH 

RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

v.

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Emilio Reyes, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, brought an action 

under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) against Defendant Bureau of Indian 

Affairs Pacific Regional Office. Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil filing fee 

required to commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A. Motion to Proceed IFP

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of 

a suit without prepayment of fees if plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a 

statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay filing fees. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit sufficiently showing

that he lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Case 3:17-cv-01187-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)

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

motion to proceed IFP is granted. 

B. Sua Sponte Screening

Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is 

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds 

the Complaint is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 

Initially, Plaintiff seeks access to certain documents in Defendant’s 

possession and production of a Vaughn index of documents withheld by Defendant

pursuant to FOIA.

1 The FOIA “provides for the mandatory disclosure of 

information held by federal agencies, unless the requested material is exempt from 

mandatory disclosure.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 220–

21 (1978). To state a claim under the FOIA, a plaintiff must show “that an agency 

has (1) ‘improperly’; (2) ‘withheld’; (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reporters 

Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(4)(B)). Here, there is no allegation that Defendant improperly withheld any 

agency records when requested by Plaintiff in a timely fashion. Rather, Plaintiff 

merely seeks certain documents in Defendant’s possession, where “[t]he precise 

documents to which [P]laintiff seeks access are contained in an online request dated 

April 1, 2016 to the Indian Affairs FOIA Office[.]” (Compl.) Moreover, Plaintiff 

 1 The term “Vaughn Index” originated from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.

Cir. 1973), where the court rejected an agency’s conclusory affidavit to the effect 

that requested FOIA documents were subject to exemption. “The purpose of a 

Vaughn Index is ‘to afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, 

and the district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the 

withholding.’” Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 

1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir.

1991)).

Case 3:17-cv-01187-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)

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

requests production of a Vaughn Index, contending “[it] would be particularly useful 

in sharpening the issues and permitting the plaintiff to test the bases for the 

government’s exemption claims.” (Id.) This is insufficient to state a claim under 

the FOIA. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01187-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3