Opinion ID: 787911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Moore's FOIA Claim

Text: 46 Count I of Moore's complaint sought various documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, in connection with the incident at the Lakewood Bar and Grill. The district court did not explain the reason it dismissed Count I of the complaint, 14 but the government maintains on appeal that, as with Moore's request for damages, this request, too, is covered and resolved by the NATO-SOFA. Specifically, the government's explanation is that, [b]ecause this document request `aris[es] out of' the same tortious acts giving rise to plaintiff's personal injury claim, it is likewise covered by NATO-SOFA. We disagree. 47 FOIA claims are, by their nature, simply requests for governmental information, and thus arise only out of agency denials of properly filed FOIA claims. See, e.g., Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2004). A person seeking information under the FOIA ... need not have a personal stake in the information sought, McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1237-38 (3d Cir.1993), but need only follow the proper procedures for filing an administrative FOIA claim and then challenge its denial. See Hymen v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 799 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). Nothing more is necessary — no involvement in the matter about which information is sought, and no articulated reason for wanting the information. The requesting individual may be doing historical research, for example, or may just be curious about someone or some event; the request need not specify a particular event at all, but could sweep more broadly and generally. Because a FOIA claim only arises once an agency denies a document request, and runs in favor of anyone, whether or not involved in — or even aware of — matters discussed in the document sought, the government's argument that Moore's FOIA claim arises out of the bar fight is without merit. 48 Moore's argument on this point, that [t]here is no reason not to order the United Kingdom to produce these records, (Appellant's Br. at 8), is, however, equally meritless. Just because the request for records is not covered by the NATO-SOFA does not mean that Moore is entitled to sue the United Kingdom under FOIA. No cause of action 15 lies under FOIA against a foreign government. FOIA applies only to agencies of the executive branch of the United States government. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58, 83 (1st Cir.1997). 49 Moore neither named the United States or any agency or official of the United States as a defendant in his Complaint nor alleged any withholding of information by any agency or official of the U.S. government. See Schiffer v. FBI, 78 F.3d 1405, 1408 (9th Cir.1996) (outlining the typical procedures in a FOIA case). Absent some allegation concerning the federal government, he does not state a FOIA claim. 50 If it is information from the British government that Moore seeks, he has a remedy in the British courts, via the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, c. 36 (Eng.), a statute closely analogous to FOIA. Whether Moore chooses to pursue a FOIA claim in U.S. courts against the U.S. government, or in English courts against the British government, there is nothing currently before this court that merits any ruling on the merits of Moore's claim to the requested documents. 51 Even though the district court erred in dismissing the FOIA claim because of its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the FSIA claim, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2004). The viability of Moore's FOIA claim determines whether he was entitled to a default judgment against the United Kingdom, or whether, instead, the claim should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The FSIA provides that [n]o judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the United States ... against a foreign state ... unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). This provision, which mirrors Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(e), 16 codifies in the FSIA context the long-standing presumption that due process requires plaintiffs seeking default judgments to make out a prima facie case. See, e.g., TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir.1987). Thus, if Moore has not adequately alleged that he has a claim or right to relief under FOIA, 17 he is not entitled to a default judgment, and dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper. Since, as discussed above, FOIA claims cannot run against the United Kingdom, Moore has not adequately alleged that he has a claim or right to relief under FOIA, and his FOIA claim could — and should — have been dismissed.