Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1632 (JDB).
February 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Nadia Martinale ("plaintiff") brings this actionpro se against the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") seeking to obtain proof through the Freedom of Information Act that her father is the son of Anastasia Tschaikowsky, who claimed to be the daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Plaintiff also has requested other forms of relief related to her alleged lineage through several motions. Currently pending are defendants' motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, three motions filed by plaintiff in support of her claims for relief, and plaintiff's motion requesting an expedited ruling. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants' motions for summary judgment and denies plaintiff's motions.
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2003, plaintiff filed a 106-page complaint alleging that her father is the son of Anastasia Tschaikowsky, and further alleging that "plotters" supported by the French, Russian, and German governments have engaged in an extensive course of conduct to deny the circumstance of her lineage and otherwise harm plaintiff and her family because of the international political consequences of recognizing a descendant of the royal Romanov family. Plaintiff styles her case as a "complaint to United States District Court of Columbia to get proo[f] of that filiation, from my FOIA request and appeal." Complaint at 2. She reiterates this request in the final pages of her complaint, citing the requests submitted to each of the defendants pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA").
On August 4, 2003, plaintiff filed a 9-page document captioned "amended complaint," which appears intended to supplement the original complaint. See Complaint at 9 (stating intent to file complaint in two parts). The amended complaint alleges additional actions by persons plotting against her to prevent her from obtaining proof of her lineage, briefly describes her intent to make a claim for political asylum in the United States, and reiterates the importance of obtaining proof of her filiation with Anna Tschaikowsky.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing the FOIA claims, the Court has considered matters outside of the complaint, and thus treats defendants' motions as motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the evidence demonstrate that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party may successfully support its motion by informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record, such as pleadings and affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).
In determining whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact, the court must regard the non-movant's statements as true and accept all evidence and make all inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A non-moving party, however, must establish more than the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of its position. Id. at 252. By pointing to the absence of evidence proffered by the non-moving party, a moving party may succeed on summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted).
In determining whether plaintiff has adequately alleged claims independent of FOIA in the complaint and amended complaint sufficient to survive defendants' request for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the Court applies a more liberal standard of review. "[I]n passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader."Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (quoted in Walker v. Jones, 733 F.2d 923, 925-26 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Thus, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) will not be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1987). All that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require of a complaint is that it contain "'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."Conley, 355 U.S. at 47. "Given the Federal Rules' simplified standard for pleading, '[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.'"Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (quotingHishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the plaintiff's factual allegations must be presumed true and should be liberally construed in his or her favor.Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993).
Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction, and a court has an "affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority." Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001); see also Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 27 F. Supp. 2d 15, 19 (D.D.C. 1998). "'[P]laintiff's factual allegations in the complaint . . . will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion' than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim." Grand Lodge, 185 F. Supp. 2d at 13-14 (quoting 5A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ARTHURR. MILLER, FEDERALPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1350 (2d ed. 1987)).
A court may rely on extra-pleading materials to resolve subject matter jurisdiction. See Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992). However, the Court has not done so in this case.
ANALYSIS
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's FOIA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, seek summary judgment, on the ground that each defendant has conducted a reasonable search for responsive documents, which resulted in no responsive documents being located by the CIA and the release of all responsive documents located by the FBI and DHS. Plaintiff opposes the motions based primarily on the following grounds: (1) the relief sought in her lawsuit is an order compelling the government to declare her filiation with Anastasia Tschaikowsky, based on fundamental individual, civil, and human rights, independent of rights under FOIA; (2) the President of the United States possesses inherent authority to grant her relief; and (3) the CIA's assertion that it located "no records" is not credible because of plaintiff's certainty that the CIA conducted investigations on Anastasia Tschaikowsky and that the CIA would not reveal the existence of responsive classified information. Additionally, plaintiff has filed motions seeking additional relief, including financial compensation for her suffering, protection of the U.S. government from persons plotting against her, political asylum, and a declaration entitling her to assistance in having children.
Defendants assert that plaintiff has conceded that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the FOIA claims. Defs.' Reply Br. at 2. However, because plaintiff makes conflicting statements, the Court does not construe the cited statement as conceding lack of jurisdiction over the FOIA claims.
A. Freedom of Information Act
In a FOIA action challenging the adequacy of an agency's search, summary judgment is warranted where the agency submits a reasonably detailed affidavit or declaration demonstrating that it has conducted a search "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Steinberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The affidavits are adequate where they identify the search term and the type of search performed and aver that the files likely to contain responsive materials were searched. Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 313-14 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The Court has conducted a thorough review of the declarations submitted by the CIA, FBI, and DHS, and finds that the declarations meet these standards. Plaintiff has not produced any countervailing evidence placing the sufficiency of the identification or retrieval procedures in dispute, nor does she rebut any of defendants' statements of material facts not in dispute. Thus, the Court presumes that those facts are admitted.See Local Court Rule 56.1.
Plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment is based on her belief that responsive documents must exist and that defendants will not disclose the existence of classified documents because they are, by their nature, "secrets." Pl.'s Opp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J. at 9. The legal standard for evaluating the adequacy of the search is "not whether there might exist any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate." Steinberg, 23 F.3d at 551 (emphasis in original) (quoting Weisberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Plaintiff's strong belief that defendants possess responsive documents beyond those disclosed is nothing more than speculation, and therefore is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the adequacy of the searches conducted by defendants. Additionally, plaintiff's allegation that defendants will not disclose the existence of responsive classified documents subject to FOIA is unsupported by any evidence, and therefore is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Assassination Archives and Research Ctr. v. CIA, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2001) (affidavits are sufficient basis for summary judgment in the absence of record evidence that contradicts the affidavits or suggests agency bad faith), aff'd, 334 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2003). It is well-established that where an agency seeks to withhold information responsive to a FOIA request, the agency must assert the applicability of an exemption and support it with appropriate affidavits or declarations. See, e.g., Spirko v. United States Postal Serv., 147 F.3d 992, 997-98 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing obligation of the government to "provide a detailed index to the requester 'itemizing each item withheld, the exemptions claimed for that item, and the reasons why the exemption applies to that item'") (quoting Lykins v. United States Dep't of Justice, 725 F.2d 1455, 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Defendants have asserted that all responsive information has been released, and no responsive information has been withheld pursuant to an exemption. Defendants' declarations are accorded "a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by 'purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents,'" or, as here, the bald assertion that responsive documents secretly have been withheld without informing the Court. SafeCard Servs v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground Saucer Watch v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's FOIA claims.
B. Relief Independent of the Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff's motions for relief assert that, independent of FOIA, she seeks an order compelling the government to declare her filiation with Anastasia Tschaikowsky, based on fundamental individual, civil, and human rights, and the authority of the President of the United States. Plaintiff's motions also seek additional relief, including financial compensation for her alleged suffering, U.S. government protection from persons plotting against her, political asylum, and a declaration entitling her to assistance in having children. Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to articulate a basis of jurisdiction or state a reason grounded in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes why she is entitled to the relief requested, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
Construing the complaint and amended complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that they allege only claims under FOIA, as stated on the face of the original complaint: "I make that complaint to United States District Court of Columbia to get proo[f] of that filiation [to Anna Tschaikowsky], from my FOIA request and appeal." Complaint at 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint further describes the circumstances giving rise to the importance of obtaining the information identified in her FOIA requests, but does not purport to expand the legal claims asserted. Am. Compl. at 9 ("So as you see my situation is urgent, United States if freedom for me, and it is vital for me to have proo[f] of my filiation with A. Tschaikowsky. . . ."). The relief sought by plaintiff in her motions is beyond the scope of the claims asserted in her complaint and amended complaint, and the motions can be denied on that basis.
Assuming arguendo that plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint can be construed to encompass the requests for relief described in her motions, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a basis of jurisdiction for the relief requested or to implicate a violation of any federal law by defendants. Nor can the Court discern any.
Although defendants' raise their arguments in support of dismissal of the non-FOIA claims in their reply brief and brief in opposition to plaintiff's motions for relief, the Court believes dismissal is appropriate. The complaint does not clearly encompass the claims later asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff had the opportunity to oppose — and did oppose — defendants' request, and the Court has determined that plaintiff could not possibly obtain the relief requested. See Baker v. Director, United States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (trial court may dismiss a claim based on arguments not made in a motion to dismiss "where the claimant cannot possibly win relief").
The only factual allegations that could potentially give rise to a cognizable legal claim are those relating to plaintiff's request for political asylum. Plaintiff's amended complaint refers to her initiation of the process of "making a claim for political asylum and fill[ing] form I-589 not to be oblige[d] to come back to France. . . ." Id. at 7. However, the only information in the record about further action on plaintiff's application indicates that a final decision has not been made.See Pl.'s Opp. to Defs.' Mot. for Enlargement of Time at 3-4 ("Immigration Service sent me a notice of intent to deny 29th September 2003 and I provide a rebuttal to Arlington Immigration Service: 9th October."). The Court has found no further references to a decision in plaintiff's other filings. Thus, on this record, there is no final decision on plaintiff's request for political asylum for the Court to review. Additionally, the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review final decisions regarding deportation and exclusion of aliens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) ("(b) Requirements for review of orders of removal. . . . (2) Venue and forms — The petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings") (codifying judicial review provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996)); see also Hose v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 180 F.3d 992, 994-95 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing judicial review provisions of the Act). Thus, to the extent that plaintiff seeks review of DHS action on a political asylum request, the Court would dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the entire record herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that [16] the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, filed by defendants CIA and FBI is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that [18] the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, filed by defendant DHS is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims for relief pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act; it is further
ORDERED that [22, 24, 25] plaintiff's first, second, and third motions for claim for relief are DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that the complaint and amended complaint are DISMISSED in their entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that [28] plaintiff's motion to the Court to act urgently is DENIED as moot.