Parker v. United States Probation Office

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEREK RICKARD PARKER, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1373-DMS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS 14 UNITED STATES PROBATION 15 OFFICE; UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICER MIMI 16 MANZANO; SUPERVISORY OFFICER 17 CHRISTOPHER J. MARCO; SUPERVISORY PROBATION 18 OFFICER YMELDA VALENZUELA; 19 JOHN DOES # 1-10, ET AL., Defendants. 20 21 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court 22 grants the motion and dismisses the complaint without leave to amend. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff Derek Richard Parker, proceeding pro se, filed a 26 complaint alleging various violations of Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 27 § 552. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the United States Probation Office and three 28 Federal Probation Officers violated FOIA when they failed to provide him with a requested 1 copy of a Probation Office policy regarding the possession of firearms in a residence 2 occupied by a person on supervised release. (Id.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 3 complaint on August 31, 2021. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 4 16, 2021, in which he also requests leave to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On 5 September 24, 2021, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 6.) The matter is fully briefed 6 and submitted. 7 II. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Defendants argue Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because none of the 10 Defendants qualify as “agencies” under FOIA. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) “FOIA requires 11 governmental ‘agencies’ to make ‘agency records’ available to any person for a nominal 12 charge. . . .” Warth v. Dep't of Justice, 595 F.2d 521, 522 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 13 § 552(a)(3), (4)(A)–(B)). However, “the definition of the term ‘agency’ expressly exempts 14 ‘the courts of the United States’ from the Act's operation.” Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 15 551(1)(B)). The United States Probation Office is an arm of the federal courts. United 16 States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 1994) (since “[t]he United States Probation Office 17 is established pursuant to the direction of Congress as an arm of the United States District 18 Court[,] . . . it is reasonable to view the United States Probation Office itself as a legally 19 constituted arm of the judicial branch.”). FOIA’s judicial exemption therefore applies to 20 probation offices. Hoffman v. Congdon, No. 1:20-cv-00492-DCN, 2020 WL 7061746, at 21 *2 (D. Idaho Dec. 2, 2020) (holding FOIA’s judicial exemption “extends to United States 22 probation offices because they are an arm of the federal courts”); Maydak v. U.S. Dep't of 23 Justice, 254 F. Supp. 2d 23, 40 (D.D.C. 2003) (adopting the conclusion that “a United 24 States probation office is not subject to the FOIA's disclosure requirement because it is an 25 arm of the federal courts”). Here, Plaintiff brings a FOIA action against the United States 26 Probation Office and three probation officers. These Defendants fall within the judicial 27 exemption to FOIA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. See Hoffman, 28 1 2020 WL 7061746, at *2 (“FOIA requests directed to federal courts or their probation 2 offices cannot be maintained as legal actions”). 3 Plaintiff also requests leave to amend the complaint to bring a civil rights claim. 4 (ECF No. 5 at 4–5.) However, “[w]hen a proposed amendment would be futile, there is no 5 need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment.” Gardener v. Martino, 6 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 7 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 8 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could 9 not be cured by amendment.”). Amendment as to Plaintiff’s FOIA claims would be futile 10 because Defendants are exempt from FOIA’s requirements. Further, Plaintiff has no viable 11 alternative cause of action. Civil rights actions against individual federal employees arise 12 under an implied right of action that was first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 13 Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, the Supreme Court has subsequently emphasized 14 that it has only recognized the availability of Bivens actions in three contexts: (1) unlawful 15 searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (2) discrimination in violation 16 of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and (3) cruel and unusual punishment in 17 violation of the Eighth Amendment. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1854–55 (2017) 18 (citations omitted). None of these issues is implicated by the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s 19 complaint. In deference to the Supreme Court’s observation that “expanding the Bivens 20 remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity,” id. at 1857 (citation omitted), the Court 21 finds that amendment would be futile in this case and denies leave to amend. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Il. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 For these reasons, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. The 4 || Clerk is directed to close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. J p 6 || Dated: November 5, 2021 . 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw . United States Chief District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28