Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-1187 DMS (BGS)
06-26-2017
EMILIO REYES, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE, Defendant.
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Plaintiff Emilio Reyes, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, brought an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") against Defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office. Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil filing fee required to commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
A. Motion to Proceed IFP
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit sufficiently showing that he lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is granted. B. Sua Sponte Screening
Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the Complaint is "frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.").
Initially, Plaintiff seeks access to certain documents in Defendant's possession and production of a Vaughn index of documents withheld by Defendant pursuant to FOIA. The FOIA "provides for the mandatory disclosure of information held by federal agencies, unless the requested material is exempt from mandatory disclosure." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 220-21 (1978). To state a claim under the FOIA, a plaintiff must show "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) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). Here, there is no allegation that Defendant improperly withheld any agency records when requested by Plaintiff in a timely fashion. Rather, Plaintiff merely seeks certain documents in Defendant's possession, where "[t]he precise documents to which [P]laintiff seeks access are contained in an online request dated April 1, 2016 to the Indian Affairs FOIA Office[.]" (Compl.) Moreover, Plaintiff requests production of a Vaughn Index, contending "[it] would be particularly useful in sharpening the issues and permitting the plaintiff to test the bases for the government's exemption claims." (Id.) This is insufficient to state a claim under the FOIA. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.
The term "Vaughn Index" originated from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), where the court rejected an agency's conclusory affidavit to the effect that requested FOIA documents were subject to exemption. "The purpose of a Vaughn Index is 'to afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding.'" Citizens Comm'n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991)). --------
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge