Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01787/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01787-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian C. Applegate
Plaintiff
D. Goree
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Brian Applegate (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action 

pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court 

“direct[] the Appeal Coordinator, D. Goree, of CSP-Corcoran to perform according to 5 USCA 

§552(a)(2-7).” (Id. at 1.) Because the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to state agencies or 

state employees, the Court recommends the action be DISMISSED without prejudice.

I. Screening Requirement

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and 

shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the 

action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). A 

claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, 

whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 

504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).

BRIAN C. APPLEGATE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01787 - AWI - JLT 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 

THE ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

Case 1:13-cv-01787-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

II. Pleading Standards

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 

pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the 

relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less 

stringent standards” than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and 

succinct manner, and identify the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 

1984). The Supreme Court noted,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers 

labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 

factual enhancement.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when 

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The 

plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than 

a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint 

pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of

the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’

Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). When factual allegations in a complaint are well-pled, a 

court should assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to 

relief. Id. However, legal conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. 

III. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff asserts that he requested the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) make its 

“Screener’s Handbook” “available for public inspection and copying” pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§ 

Case 1:13-cv-01787-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 4
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

6250-6253.1. (Doc. 1 at 1.) He asserts that he completed a “Request to Inspect Public Records” on 

October 6, 2013 for the “Screener’s Handbook,” which was not answered. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff 

requests that this Court “apply 5 USCA § 552(a)...and compel [the] CDCR appeal coordinator to 

provide the ‘Screener’s Handbook.’” (Id.)

Importantly, however, the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) applies only to federal 

agencies and authorities. St. Michael’s Convalescent Hosp. v. State of California, 643 F.2d 1369, 1373

(9th Cir. 1981) (FOIA “does not encompass state agencies or bodies”); Kerr v. United States Dist. 

Court for N. Dist. Of California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975) (explaining the purpose of FOIA 

was “to expand the access of the public to official records of federal agencies”). Consequently, this 

Court has determined that the Freedom of Information Act “is not applicable to the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a state agency.” Spencer v. Scribner, 2008 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 104379, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (citing St. Michael’s, 643 F.2d 1369; Kerr, 511 F.2d at 

197). As a result, Plaintiff is unable to state a claim against the CDCR, and this Court cannot compel 

the appeal coordinator to produce documents pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552.

IV. Findings and Recommendations

A plaintiff should be granted leave to amend when the deficiencies of the complaint can be 

cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). When it appears beyond 

doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim 

or claims that would entitle him to relief, the a complaint would may be dismissed. See Hishon v. King 

& Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Here, it is 

clear that an amendment to the complaint would be futile, as the Freedom of Information Act does not 

apply to state agencies. Moreover, any remaining state causes of action must be pursued state court 

given this Court lacks the authority to adjudicate purely state law matters.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 

to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 

Case 1:13-cv-01787-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 12/16/13 Page 3 of 4
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

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of the 

date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file and serve written objections 

with the Court. A document containing objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: December 16, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01787-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 12/16/13 Page 4 of 4