Adamo v. Romero

JEANNA S. ADAMO, Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND L. ROMERO, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 15-971 JB/GBW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

April 27, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This matter is before the Court on: Defendants Blaine Rennie's and Sergeant FNU Burns' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 7); Defendant Michael Brookreson's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 20); Defendants Lisa Keyes', Stephanie Legaretta's, Lee Whitis', and Anna Martinez's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Department of Homeland Security (doc. 42); and Defendants Scott London's and Ernest Mendoza's Response and Objections to Plaintiff's Petition (doc. 69). Having reviewed the parties' accompanying briefing on these matters and being fully advised, I recommend that the Court grant the Motions.

I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Plaintiff Jeanna Adamo, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against various federal, state, and local law enforcement officials alleging their failure to comply with public records requests, as required under the federal Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act ("IPRA").¹ See generally doc. 1.

Plaintiff initiated suit in this Court on October 26, 2015. Doc. 1. On December 21, 2015, Defendants Blaine Rennie and Sergeant FNU Burns (collectively, "Carlsbad Defendants") filed an amended Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 7. On January 7, 2016, Defendant Michael Brookreson, a former Las Cruces police officer, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. Doc. 20. On February 1, 2016, Defendants Lisa Keyes, Stephanie Legaretta, Lee Whitis, and Anna Martinez (collectively, "Federal Defendants") filed a motion and supporting memorandum seeking dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See docs. 42, 43. This motion also sought summary judgment on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), to whom Federal Defendants assert Plaintiff's FOIA claim should have been addressed. Id.

On February 11, 2016, Defendants Scott London and Ernest Mendoza (collectively, "Eddy County Defendants") filed a Motion seeking leave to file a Response/Objection to Plaintiff's Writ of Mandamus. Doc. 49. This Court granted the motion (see doc. 67) and Eddy County Defendants filed their Response on March 24, 2016, seeking denial of the writ on the basis of mootness and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See doc. 69.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is a New Mexico resident domiciled in Carlsbad, Eddy County. Doc. 1 at 4. On or about April 7, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a "Praecipe" to various identified law enforcement officers allegedly involved in the execution of "Search Warrant SW-2012-1, issued June 13, 2012, carried out at 504 Oakwood Drive, Carlsbad, New Mexico on June 19, 2012; and Case Nos: M-17-FR-2013-00129 and D-503-CR-2Q14-00198." Doc. 1 at 4, 14. This document was identified as a request pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and IPRA, N.M. Stat. § 14-2, seeking certified copies of each official's "oaths of office", "bonds underwriting the oaths and duties" of office, and "all qualifications required under the New Mexico Constitution" in order for those officials to "affirmatively prove" their authority to act as government officers and agents. Id. at 15, 17.

As of the filing of her Complaint, Plaintiff asserted that she had "received oaths of office from a few of the respondents, but none have supplied all of the [] requested documents." Id. at 4. Concluding that Defendants "refused to respond to the FOIA andpublic records request," Plaintiff brought the present action. Id. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Defendants to "produce all necessary and required Oaths, Qualifications and Bonds," and also seeks compensatory redress "for [her] time and effort and for any and all attorney['s] fees incurred within this action." Id. at 5.

III. FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Federal Defendants assert that Plaintiff's FOIA claims should be dismissed against them on the basis that FOIA only creates a right of action against a federal agency itself, not the individuals employed by such agency. Doc. 43 at 1-5. Federal Defendants claim that because of this deficiency in pleading, the allegations do not fall within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff responds that Federal Defendants' attempts to avoid disclosure of the requested information violate the spirit of transparency and cooperation which FOIA was intended to embody. Doc. 58 at 1-2. Plaintiff also claims that the requested documentation did not fall within any exemption to FOIA's disclosure requirements, emphasizing her belief that an officer's or agent's failure to have their oath, bond, and qualifications on file undercuts their authority to perform their official duties. Id. at 2-5. Ultimately, I recommend concluding that the Court does not possess jurisdiction and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, entitling Federal Defendants to dismissal.

A. Legal Standard

i. Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)

"A 12(b)(1) motion is the proper avenue to challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(h)(3) requires that '(w)henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.'" Barnson v. United States, 531 F. Supp. 614, 617 (D. Utah 1982). Such motions may take one of two forms. First, "a facial attack on the complaint's allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction questions the sufficiency of the complaint." Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1002 (10th Cir. 1995). In reviewing motions of this type, "a district court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true." Id. Second, "a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends. Id. In evaluating motions brought under the second form, the Tenth Circuit explained:

When reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume the truthfulness of the complaint's factual allegations. A court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).

Id. (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, this Court reviews the face of the complaint and any relevant external materials to determine whether Plaintiff has presented claims within the Court's jurisdiction, a necessary prerequisite for adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); see also Fleming v. Gutierrez, 785 F.3d442, 444 (10th Cir. 2015) (holding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction precludes reaching the merits of a dispute).

ii. Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which the court can grant relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and must view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). "The court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted." Id.

To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Thus, the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reasonto believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims." Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007).

The court need only evaluate allegations "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, the court is not required to accept conclusions of law or the asserted application of law to the alleged facts. Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457, 1465 (10th Cir. 1994). Following these principles, the Court considers whether the facts "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Barrett v. Orman, 373 F. App'x 823, 825 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78).

iii. Pro se Pleadings

The Court notes that pleadings submitted by an individual proceeding pro se are held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by attorneys. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A "pro se document is to be liberally construed," and can be dismissed for failure to state a claim only "if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This liberal construction, however, will not relieve plaintiff of his burden of presenting sufficient facts to state a legally cognizable claim." White v. State of Colo., 82 F.3d 364, 366 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

B. Analysis

As noted, Plaintiff brought suit against several individuals identified as...