IVAN RAY BEGAY, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 21-782 (TJK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia
October 6, 2021
MEMORANDUM ORDER
TIMOTHY J. KELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, sues Defendant for release of information related to his decades-old criminal prosecution. He brings claims under the First Amendment and the Freedom of Information Act. Defendant moves to dismiss the First Amendment claim and Plaintiffs requests for certain remedies. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiffs demand for a jury trial. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion in part by dismissing Plaintiffs First Amendment claim and striking his jury demand, and otherwise deny it.
I. Background
In 2001, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and four counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(2). ECF No. 9 at 2 (citing United States v. Begay, 10-cv-08221, ECF No. 6 (D. Ariz. Feb. 16, 2011)). Seventeen years later, he sued the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ECF No. 9 at 4. Plaintiff alleged that EOUSA was improperly withholding biological evidence related to his criminal prosecution. Id. EOUSA moved for summary judgment and noted that Plaintiffs criminal case file was “housed
at the Federal Records Center of the National Archives due to the age of the case.” The court granted EOUSA's motion for summary judgment after Plaintiff failed to respond. Id.
Plaintiff then brought this suit. ECF No. 1. He seeks relief under FOIA and alleges that Defendant violated his First Amendment right to petition the government. Id. He asks the Court, among other things, to order Defendant to “release, test, and reproduce information” sought in his FOIA request, “test Mr. Begay's Biological Swab containing Alcohol/Marijuana compounds, ” and pay “one million dollars in compensatory damages.” Id. at Sec. E ¶¶ 1-3, 10. He also asks that the Court appoint him an attorney and demands a jury trial. Id. at 1; Sec. E ¶ 9.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in part. ECF No. 9. Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs First Amendment claim and his requests to test certain evidence, appoint him an attorney, and pay him monetary damages. Id. at 6-7. Defendant also argues that the Court should strike Plaintiff s jury demand. Id. at 1, 7-8.
II. Legal Standards
“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff s complaint; it does not require a court to ‘assess the truth of what is asserted or determine whether a plaintiff has any evidence to back up what is in the complaint.'” Herron v. Fannie Mae, 861 F.3d 160, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must have ‘facial plausibility,' meaning it must ‘plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must construe the complaint ‘in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit
of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'” Id. (quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). When a plaintiff proceeds pro se “his complaint ‘is to be liberally construed' and ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Bowman v. Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). In such cases, courts can also consider the plaintiffs “pro se affidavits and exhibits, as well as public records subject to judicial notice.” Id. “But the Court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff if those inferences are not supported by the facts set out in the complaint, nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast as factual allegations.” Hettinga, 677 F.3d at 476.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes a court to strike “from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” While district courts have broad discretion in this area, “motions to strike, as a general rule, are disfavored.” Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine...
