Court Opinion

ID: 9378925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 00:00:32.453464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.268823
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50227        Document: 00516675025             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50227
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                                                                March 13, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Jose Martinez,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
   named as Administrative Office of US Courts,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:21-CV-1200

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Jose Martinez, an inmate proceeding pro se, challenges the dismissal
   of his complaint brought against the Administrative Office of the United
   States Courts (the “AOUSC”). In his initial complaint, Martinez alleged
   that he mailed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
   5 U.S.C. § 552, to the AOUSC, asking for the “original/unaltered audio

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50227     Document: 00516675025           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/13/2023

                                    No. 22-50227

   recordings” from the criminal trial that resulted in his incarceration.
   Martinez alleged that the AOUSC failed to respond to his request within the
   time prescribed under FOIA. Martinez thus sought an injunction requiring
   AOUSC to “produce the requested audio recordings.” The district court
   dismissed the complaint after screening Martinez’s claim under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915A, reasoning that he failed to state a claim because the AOUSC is not
   subject to FOIA. The court, however, granted Martinez leave to amend his
   complaint. In his amended complaint, the substance of Martinez’s
   allegations remains largely unchanged. Notably, though, he has excised any
   reference to FOIA; instead, he generically refers to “a request for
   information” that he submitted to AOUSC. Martinez now seeks either “an
   order, injunction, and/or writ of mandamus requiring the AOUSC to
   respond to [his] request.” After screening the amended complaint, the
   district court dismissed it with prejudice pursuant to § 1915A for the same
   reason that it dismissed his original complaint: the court explained that the
   AOUSC is not subject to FOIA, maintaining that Martinez’s “request” in
   his amended complaint was equivalent to the “FOIA request” in his initial
   complaint.
          On appeal, Martinez contends that the district court did not afford
   him the liberal pleading standards to which pro se litigants are entitled. He
   also challenges the court’s characterization of the “request” referred to in
   his amended complaint as a “FOIA request,” arguing that the court was
   permitted to consider only the facts alleged in his amended complaint, which
   made no reference to FOIA. Martinez asserts that the court’s description of
   his “request” as a “FOIA request” evinces that it incorrectly considered
   facts that were only located in his initial complaint in dismissing his amended
   complaint.
          We review a § 1915A dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo using
   the same standard applicable to claims challenged under Federal Rule of Civil

                                         2
Case: 22-50227      Document: 00516675025           Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/13/2023

                                     No. 22-50227

   Procedure 12(b)(6). Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415,
   419 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The district court interpreted Martinez’s
   complaint as a request for mandamus relief. To obtain mandamus relief, a
   party must establish that “(1) ‘no other adequate means [exist] to attain the
   relief he desires,’ (2) the party’s ‘right to issuance of the writ is “clear and
   indisputable,”’ and (3) ‘the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’”
   Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in
   original) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
   (2004)). The AOUSC is not subject to FOIA requests. See 5 U.S.C.
   § 551(1)(B)   (for   the    purposes    of    FOIA,    “‘agency’ . . . does   not
   include . . . the courts of the United States”); accord Warth v. Dep’t of Just.,
   595 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Courts are exempt from . . . FOIA’s
   disclosure requirements,” and because “a trial transcript is a court
   document” it is “not obtainable pursuant to . . . FOIA.”); Banks v. Dep’t of
   Just., 538 F. Supp. 2d 228, 232 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[T]he Administrative
   Office of the United States Courts is an arm of the federal courts and
   therefore is not subject to FOIA . . . .”).
          Here, Martinez does not disclaim the allegation in his initial complaint
   that he submitted a FOIA request to the AOUSC; rather, he readily admits
   that he “intentionally omitted” this detail from his amended complaint to
   “circumvent” the reasoning used by the district court in its original dismissal
   order. Because the AOUSC is not required to respond to FOIA requests,
   Martinez cannot show that his right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus is
   “clear and indisputable.” See Hollingsworth, 558 U.S. at 190. Therefore, the
   amended complaint fails to state a claim, even when liberally construed. See
   Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2021).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3