Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01189/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01189-0/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

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. 17cv1189-WQH-BLM

ORDER

v.

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Emilio Reyes

(“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 1) and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) filed by Plaintiff.

On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action under the Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil filing fee

required to commenced this action, but Plaintiff has filed the Motion for Leave to

Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2).

I. Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2)

 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s

failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) states,

- 1 - 17cv1189-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01189-WQH-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such

prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give

security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action,

defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

In this case, after considering Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the filing fee in this case and is eligible to

proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP

(ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

II. Initial Screening of the Complaint

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

is subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the extent it “is frivolous or

malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). This screening standard

applies to all civil actions where a court grants IFP; see Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845,

845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not

limited to prisoners”).

In this case, the Complaint states that “plaintiff seeks access to documents in the

possession of the Bureau of Indian Affairs concerning FOIA BIA-2017-00004 seeking

1928 California Indian enrollment application #5691 for Margaret Alviso Domingues

and #5692 for Custodia Alviso Robles.” (ECF No. 1 at 1). The Complaint states,

14 documents responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request have been withheld

in full. A Vaughn index would be particularly useful in sharpening the issues and permitting the plaintiff to test the bases for the government’s exemption claims. Therefore, plaintiff has requested the Court to require the defendant to provide the plaintiff with an appropriate Vaughn index

within 20 days of the date of the Court’s Order. Id. at 2.

“FOIA ‘was enacted to facilitate public access to Government documents.’” 

Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting U.S. Dept.

- 2 - 17cv1189-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01189-WQH-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991)). The purpose of a Vaughn index, a term

which originated from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), “‘is to afford

the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an

adequate opportunity to review, the soundness of the withholding.’” Fiduccia v. U.S.

Dept. of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wiener v. F.B.I., 943

F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991)). Under the FOIA statute, “federal jurisdiction is

dependent upon a showing 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) (citation omitted). “FOIA’s waiver of immunity and jurisdictional

grant provides that district courts have ‘jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from

withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records

improperly withheld from the complainant.’” Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration

Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1101 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). The

plaintiff in a FOIA action bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has

jurisdiction over the action. Id.

The Complaint states that documents Plaintiff has previously requested from the

Bureau of Indian Affairs “have been withheld in full[,]” and that “[a] Vaughn index

would be particularly useful” to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 2). The Complaint does not

allege that Defendant has “improperly withheld” any documents from Plaintiff. Hajro,

811 F.3d at 1101 (citation omitted). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” under the FOIA statute. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint

(ECF No. 1) without prejudice.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 3 - 17cv1189-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01189-WQH-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No.

2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close this case.

DATED: July 25, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 17cv1189-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01189-WQH-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4