Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE DAVIS WIGHT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 06-0228 GEB KJM PS

vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and sanctions came on regularly for

hearing July 26, 2006. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Yoshinori Himel appeared for

defendant. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the

arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendants move for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion

but in a document filed July 10, 2006 requests that this action be dismissed with prejudice. That

request shall be honored.

Defendants also move for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 

Plaintiff does not dispute the statement of facts set forth in defendants’ motion. Although it

appears there were procedural irregularities in connection with plaintiff’s attempts to exhaust his

administrative remedies with respect to his FOIA request for copies of a notice of levy and a

Case 2:06-cv-00228-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 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

2

statement of amounts withheld, the court finds the filing of the initial complaint in this action is

not sanctionable under Rule 11. However, plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which

plaintiff sought a nonexistent document that was not the subject of a prior FOIA request. In light

of plaintiff’s receipt of the documents requested under FOIA that were the subject of the original

complaint and the information provided to plaintiff by defense counsel after the amended

complaint was filed, the court finds plaintiff’s continued maintenance of the instant action was

frivolous. Moreover, plaintiff’s moving for an award of attorneys’ fees after he requested

dismissal with prejudice was frivolous inasmuch as plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has not

demonstrated that he is the prevailing party. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S.

432, 434-35 (1991) (citing Falcone v. IRS, 714 F.2d 646 (6th Cir. 1983) for proposition that pro

se FOIA plaintiff not entitled to attorneys’ fees); see also docket nos. 14 (plaintiff requested

$2,240.00 in legal and other costs) & 18 (plaintiff based claim for fees on valuation of his time at

$200 per hour). Plaintiff therefore will be admonished regarding his failure to conduct

reasonable inquiry into the law. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Plaintiff is admonished under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for

maintaining a frivolous action on the amended complaint and for filing a frivolous motion for

attorneys’ fees. 

DATED: September 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

wight.oah 

Case 2:06-cv-00228-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2