Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14080/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sidney Blumenthal
Appellee
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Appellee
William Jefferson Clinton
Appellee
Clinton Foundation
Appellee
Larry E. Klayman
Appellant
Cheryl D. Mills
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14080

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-80388-DMM

LARRY E. KLAYMAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, 

CLINTON FOUNDATION,

1271 Avenue of the Americans, 42nd Floor New York, New York 10020 Service: 

Chairman Bruce Lindsey or Vice-Chairman Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky 

(nee’ Chelsea Victoria Clinton),

a.k.a. The William J. Clinton Foundation,

a.k.a. The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation,

CHERYL D. MILLS,

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL,

 Defendants - Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 15-14080 Date Filed: 08/15/2016 Page: 1 of 4
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 15, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Larry Klayman, an attorney proceeding pro se, filed this action asserting a 

common law claim of misappropriation of chattel, several claims under the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and 

two Bivens1 claims alleging violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights. 

All of his claims arose out of two requests for public documents lodged with the 

United States Department of State pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act

(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Klayman alleged, among other facts, that the State 

Department failed to respond adequately because the defendants, Hillary Rodham 

Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation, misappropriated 

responsive documents. The district court dismissed Klayman’s amended 

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article 

III standing and, in the alternative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 

 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). 

USCA11 Case: 15-14080 Date Filed: 08/15/2016 Page: 2 of 4
3

for failure to state a claim. The district court also denied Klayman’s motion to file 

a second amended complaint, concluding that allowing the proposed amendment 

would be futile. This appeal followed.

We review de novo the dismissal of Klayman’s amended complaint for lack 

of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Stalley ex rel. 

United States v. Orlando Regional Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 

(11th Cir. 2008). We also review de novo the district court’s determination that his 

proposed amendment to the complaint would be futile. Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 

F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).

We agree with the district court that Klayman failed to allege facts sufficient

to support Article III standing, and we adopt the district court’s reasoning on this 

issue as set forth in its order entered on August 11, 2015. See Order Granting Mot. 

to Dismiss, Klayman v. Clinton, et al., No. 9:15-cv-80388-DMM, slip op. at 5-9

(S.D. Fla. filed Aug. 11, 2015). In particular, we agree that under Kissinger v. 

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980), Klayman 

has no general property interest in government records and FOIA does not provide 

for “private actions to recover records wrongfully removed from Government 

custody.” In addition, Klayman’s alleged economic injury is purely speculative 

and thus insufficient to support Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

USCA11 Case: 15-14080 Date Filed: 08/15/2016 Page: 3 of 4
4

We also agree with the district court that Klayman’s proposed second 

amended complaint failed to cure the standing deficiencies. Indeed, Klayman 

concedes that the proposed second amended complaint is substantively no different 

from the amended complaint. Like its predecessor, the proposed second amended 

complaint contains no factual allegations that would show a concrete injury-in-fact, 

as required for Article III standing. Moreover, it asserts the same FOIA-created 

property interest that Kissinger rejected. We thus affirm the denial of his motion to 

amend. 

Because we affirm for lack of constitutional standing, we do not examine the 

merits of Klayman’s claims. See Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 

985 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s alternative 

holdings, which purport to reach the merits, and remand with instructions to 

dismiss this action without prejudice. See DiMaio v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 

520 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-14080 Date Filed: 08/15/2016 Page: 4 of 4