Estate of Rideout v. United States

1

THE ESTATE OF DEVON RIDEOUT, by and through LESLIE WOODS as successor-in-interest; and LESLIE WOODS as an individual, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 22cv278-JO-WVG

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 14, 2023

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Honorable Jinsook Ohta, United States District Judge

Eduardo Arriola, a mentally incompetent individual and former Marine purchased a gun and shot and killed his neighbor, Devon Rideout. Ms. Rideout's mother, Leslie Woods^[1], filed a Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (“FTCA”) lawsuit against the United States of America alleging that it failed to report Mr. Arriola's mental incompetency to the federal background check system for gun purchasers. Dkt. 15 (FAC). Plaintiff alleges that, properly reported, such information would have prevented Mr. Arriola from purchasing the gun he used to shoot and kill her daughter.

On September 28, 2022, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt. 16. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the United States' motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Shooting of Devon Rideout

On July 20, 2018, Eduardo Arriola, a former United States Marine, shot and killed Devon Rideout with a gun he purchased from Iron Sights Shooting Range, a federally licensed gun retailer in Oceanside, California. FAC ¶¶ 14, 20. Ms. Rideout, a 24-year-old Navy hospital corpsperson, was walking her dog outside her apartment when she was killed. FAC ¶ 14. She did not have any relationship or connection to Mr. Arriola aside from living in the apartment one floor below him. FAC ¶ 14. Mr. Arriola told police he shot Ms. Rideout because “she was trespassing.” FAC ¶ 18.

From Mr. Arriola's time in military service, the United States Marine Corps possessed a substantial record of his mental illness. See FAC ¶¶ 21, 24-26. Mr. Arriola served in the Marine Corps from August 16, 2011, through September 29, 2017. FAC ¶ 21. In December 2014, Mr. Arriola was hospitalized for “bizarre behavior and hyper religiosity.” FAC ¶ 21. After his release from the hospital, he went absent from the military without authorization. FAC ¶ 22. In April 2016, the military located Mr. Arriola and arrested and charged him with desertion. FAC ¶¶ 22, 78. However, after a psychiatric review of Mr. Arriola's mental state, the military court determined that he was incompetent to stand trial. FAC ¶¶ 23-24. On July 20, 2016, the military court committed Mr. Arriola to a Federal Bureau of Prisons (“FBOP”) psychiatric facility for mental health treatment to regain his competency. See FAC ¶ 24. After three months of treatment, the FBOP psychiatric facility confirmed his mental incompetency and diagnosed Mr. Arriola as schizophrenic with disorganized thoughts and behavior, auditory hallucinations, and delusions. FAC ¶¶ 25-26. Ultimately, the military discharged him due to this mental incompetency. FAC ¶ 26.

B. Federal Reporting and Background Check System Surrounding Gun Purchases

Mr. Arriola's mental incompetency rendered him ineligible to purchase a gun under federal law. Federal law disqualifies people with certain characteristics from buying or owning firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), amended by Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536. Disqualifying characteristics include having a criminal record, being convicted of domestic violence, or, as relevant here, being adjudicated as “mental[ly] defective” (e.g., being found incompetent to stand trial). See 27 C.F.R. § 478.11; 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), (g)(4). Gun dealers therefore cannot sell firearms to people with these disqualifications. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”), which tasked the United States Attorney General with establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”), a federal background check system designed to prevent disqualified people from purchasing firearms. FAC ¶ 27; 34 U.S.C. § 40901. This statutory framework requires every federal department or agency to provide NICS with records containing disqualifying information-such as criminal history or mental incompetency-and to correct and update these records as necessary. 34 U.S.C. § 40901(e)(1)(D).^[2] Pursuant to both the Brady Act and the United States military's own internal regulations, these reporting requirements extend to the Department of Defense (“DOD”) and its component agencies. FAC ¶¶ 35-40. Collecting these records from reporting agencies, NICS maintains a database of people disqualified from purchasing guns. FAC ¶ 45. In turn, federally licensed gun dealers are required to consult NICS prior to completing a sale and cannot sell firearms to people who have disqualifying records in the NICS database. FAC ¶ 46; 18 U.S.C. § 922(t).

Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) administers NICS, some state agencies act as a Point of Contact (“POC”) to manage background check inquiries between in-state arms dealers and NICS. As relevant here, the California Department of Justice (“California DOJ”) serves as the POC for NICS inquiries related to prospective firearms sales in California. Pursuant to Brady Act implementing regulations, “[w]hen the NICS receives an inquiry from a POC, it will search the relevant databases (i.e., NICS Index, NCIC, III) for any matching record(s) and will provide an electronic response to the POC.” FAC ¶ 48; 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(f). In response to a background check request, NICS will provide one of three responses: (1) “Proceed,” if no disqualifying information is found; (2) “Delayed,” if more research is required before a decision can be rendered; and (3) “Denied,” if disqualifying information is found. FAC ¶ 46; 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(c)(1)(iv). State POCs serve as liaisons rather than independent investigators; while they may conduct their own research and examine state records, they rely on NICS to provide them with matching records and disqualifying information. 28 C.F.R. §§ 25.6(f)-(e); FAC ¶¶ 51-52.

C. Reporting Failures by the Department of Defense

Despite the DOD's legal obligations to do so, Plaintiff alleges that it failed to report information about Mr. Arriola's mental incompetency to the FBI. FAC ¶ 71. As a result, “NICS did not possess those records and did not communicate such disqualifying information to the California DOJ after NICS searched its database.” FAC ¶ 76. Because this disqualifying information was not present in the NICS database, NICS did not identify Mr. Arriola to California DOJ as a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm. FAC ¶¶ 73-75. Thus, when Iron Sights Shooting Range reported Mr. Arriola's prospective gun purchase to California DOJ, the NICS system failed to deny the sale of the gun. FAC ¶ 75. Plaintiff alleges that the instant failure by DOD to submit Mr. Arriola's mental incompetency finding is just one example of DOD's pervasive and longstanding failures to report disqualifying information to NICS.^[3] See FAC ¶¶ 53-66.

After NICS wrongfully approved the gun sale to Mr. Arriola, California DOJ, as the POC for this sale, attempted to gather further information about Mr. Arriola. Plaintiff alleges that a California DOJ employee independently discovered Mr. Arriola's April 26, 2016 arrest warrant and, finding no disqualifying information in the NICS database, contacted a DOD representative for additional information. FAC ¶ 78.^[4] In response, the DOD representative provided the California DOJ employee with a package of documents “noting that Arriola was transferred to the [FBOP] due to being found incompetent to stand trial by court martial.” FAC ¶¶ 79-80.^[5] However, despite receiving this information regarding Mr. Arriola's incompetence finding, the California DOJ employee did not take follow-up actions to stop the sale. See FAC ¶ 80.

D. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed two concurrent actions, one against the United States and the other against the State of California, for the death of her daughter. Plaintiff filed her original complaint against the United States in federal court on March 1, 2022. Dkt. 1. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court against California DOJ and its employee largely based on the same set of facts. RJN, Ex. 1. As explained above, Plaintiff's state court complaint alleges that a California DOJ employee reached out to the DOD directly after finding no disqualifying information in NICS regarding Mr. Arriola. Ex. 1, ¶¶ 5153. The DOD provided the California DOJ employee with a package of documents noting Mr. Arriola's mental incompetence finding. Ex. 1 ¶¶ 53-54. Plaintiff alleges that despite receiving these materials indicating Mr. Arriola's disqualified status, the California DOJ employee failed to take steps to notify the gun seller to block the sale of the gun. Ex. 1 ¶¶ 53-54.

On September 28, 2022, the United States moved to dismiss the instant federal action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt. 16.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may challenge a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction [and] possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by asserting a facial challenge or a factual challenge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). Where the moving party asserts a facial challenge, as it does here, the court limits its inquiry to...