Steven Booth v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 1:2009cv00637 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/9/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 V. STEVEN BOOTH, 14 CASE NO. CV F 09-0637 LJO SMS Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION (Doc. 7.) vs. 15 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 / INTRODUCTION 19 Defendants Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) and United States of America (collectively 20 Government ) seek summary judgment that pro se plaintiff V. Steven Booth s ( Mr. Booth s ) failure 21 to exhaust properly administrative remedies denies this Court jurisdiction over Mr. Booth s claim for 22 production of IRS records under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq. 23 Mr. Booth filed no opposition papers. This Court considered the Government s summary judgment 24 motion on the record and without a hearing or oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), (h). For 25 the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS the Government summary judgment. 26 BACKGROUND 27 Mr. Booth s FOIA Request 28 Mr. Booth sent two nearly identical March 3, 2009 letters addressed to: 1 1 2 3 District Director c/o Internal Revenue Service 5104 N. Blyth Avenue, Suite 207 Fresno, CA 93722-6429 Attn: Disclosure Officer RE: Request for Documents. 4 5 One letter is entitled FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST and the other is 6 entitled PRIVACY ACT REQUEST. (Uppercase in original.) Each letter requested records regarding 7 an IRS criminal investigation of Mr. Booth. 8 In late 2008, the IRS had moved from the location to which Mr. Booth addressed the letters and 9 there is no current IRS office at the location. In her declaration, IRS senior disclosure specialist 10 Kathlyne Morris ( Ms. Morris ) states that she searched to verify whether the IRS received a March 3, 11 2009 letter from Mr. Booth. Ms. Morris declares: I did not find any record of any letter received from 12 V. Steven Booth by any IRS office across the county in the year 2009. 13 Mr. Booth s Claims 14 On April 9, 2009, Mr. Booth filed this action to claim that the IRS failed to meet FOIA time 15 limits to respond to his request. Mr. Booth seeks an order to compel the IRS to produce requested 16 documents. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Summary Judgment Standards 19 20 The Government seeks summary judgment that Mr. Booth s action is barred in that Mr. Booth failed to send his FOIA request to the proper IRS office to exhaust administrative remedies. 21 F.R.Civ.P. 56(b) permits a party against whom relief is sought to seek summary judgment on 22 all or part of the claim. Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no genuine issue as to any 23 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F.R.Civ.P. 56(c); 24 Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986); T.W. 25 Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The purpose of 26 summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and assess the proof in order to see whether there is a 27 genuine need for trial. Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586, n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 1348; International Union 28 of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985). 2 1 On summary judgment, a court must decide whether there is a genuine issue as to any material 2 fact, not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of contested matters. F.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Covey v. 3 Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997); see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 4 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598 (1970); Poller v. Columbia Broadcast System, 368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 5 486 (1962); Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1984). 6 The evidence of the party opposing summary judgment is to be believed and all reasonable inferences 7 that may be drawn from the facts before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. 8 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 9 106 S.Ct. 1348. The inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require 10 submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. 11 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 12 F.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts 13 showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary 14 judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party. In the absence of specific facts, as 15 opposed to allegations, showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial, a properly supported summary 16 judgment motion will be granted. Nilsson, Robbins, et al. v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1545 17 (9th Cir. 1988). When a summary judgment motion is unopposed, a court must determine whether 18 summary judgment is appropriate that is, whether the moving party has shown itself to be entitled to 19 judgment as a matter of law. Anchorage Associates v. V.I. Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 175 (3rd 20 Cir. 1990). A court cannot base the entry of summary judgment on the mere fact that the motion is 21 unopposed, but, rather must consider the merits of the motion. United States v. One Piece of Real 22 Property, etc., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). A court need not sua sponte review all of the 23 evidentiary materials on file at the time the motion is granted, but must ensure that the motion itself is 24 supported by evidentiary materials. One Piece of Real Property, 363 F.3d at 1101. 25 In a FOIA case, an agency may be granted summary judgment if its affidavits describe the 26 documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail and are not 27 controverted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith. Military Audit 28 Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981). As a general rule, [d]iscovery in FOIA is rare 3 1 and should be denied where an agency's declarations are reasonably detailed, submitted in good faith and 2 the court is satisfied that no factual dispute remains. Schrecker v. Dep't of Justice, 217 F.Supp.2d 29, 3 35 (D.D.C.2002), aff'd, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C.Cir.2003); see also Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't. of Justice, 4 185 F.Supp.2d 54, 65 (D.D.C.2002) (noting that [d]iscovery is not favored in lawsuits under the 5 FOIA ). 6 7 8 With these standards in mind, this Court turns to the Government s challenges to Mr. Booth s FOIA requests. FOIA Administrative Exhaustion 9 FOIA provides a statutory right of public access to documents and records held by federal 10 government agencies. Gould, Inc. v. General Services Admin., 688 F.Supp. 689, 693 (D.D.C. 1988). 11 FOIA vests jurisdiction in federal district courts to enjoin an agency from withholding agency records 12 and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. 13 Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 139, 100 S.Ct. 960, 963 (1980) 14 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). FOIA requires a records request to reasonably describe requested 15 records and to comply with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be 16 followed. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). [O]nly a valid FOIA request can trigger an agency's FOIA 17 obligations, and . . . failure to file a perfected request therefore constitutes failure to exhaust 18 administrative remedies. Flowers v. Internal Revenue Service, 307 F.Supp.2d 60, 67 (D. D.C. 2004) 19 (quoting Dale v. Internal Revenue Service, 238 F.Supp.2d 99, 103 (D. D.C. 2002)). 20 [F]ull and timely exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to judicial review under 21 FOIA. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Naval Observatory, 160 F.Supp.2d 111, 112 (D.D.C. 2001). 22 Where no attempt to comply fully with agency procedures has been made, the courts will assert their 23 lack of jurisdiction under the exhaustion doctrine. In re Steele, 799 F.2d 461, 465-66 (9th Cir.1986). 24 Prior to seeking judicial review, a records requester must exhaust his/her administrative remedies, 25 including filing a proper FOIA request. Sands v. United States, 1995 WL 552308, *3 (S.D. Fla. 1995); 26 see Hedley v. United States, 594 F.2d 1043, 1044 (5th Cir. 1979). 27 If a records requester fails to exhaust administrative remedies, the lawsuit may be dismissed for 28 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Heyman v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 799 F.2d 1421, 1423 4 1 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1019 (1987); Judicial Watch, 160 F.Supp.2d at 112 ( Where 2 plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing with the court, the case is subject 3 to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ) The exhaustion of remedy rule is not satisfied by 4 leapfrogging over any substantive step in the administrative process. Tuchinsky v. Selective Serv. 5 System, 418 F.2d 155, 158 (7th Cir. 1969). 6 The Government notes that IRS regulations require a FOIA request to be addressed and mailed 7 to the office of the IRS official who is responsible for the control of the records requested, regardless 8 of where such records are maintained. See 26 C.F.R. § 601.702(c)(4)(i)(C). The Government explains 9 that, under IRS regulations, a Central California resident must address his/her FOIA request to the IRS 10 disclosure office in Oakland. See 26 C.F.R. § 601.702(h). The Government argues that Mr. Booth s 11 FOIA request is invalid in the absence of IRS record of his March 3, 2009 letters given that Mr. Booth 12 failed to comply with IRS regulations and mailed his letter to a building which the IRS no longer 13 occupied. In the absence of a valid FOIA request, Government argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction 14 to warrant summary judgment in its favor. 15 The Government is correct that Mr. Booth fails to invoke this Court s jurisdiction with his failure 16 to comply with IRS regulations to send his FOIA request to the correct location. This Court construes 17 Mr. Booth s lack of opposition as his concession that his FOIA request is invalid and fails to trigger 18 FOIA obligations. Ms. Morris declaration is unchallenged that there is no IRS record of a letter from 19 Mr. Booth. The Government is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in the absence of 20 disputed material facts. 21 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 For the reasons discussed above, this Court: 23 1. GRANTS the Government summary judgment; and 24 2. DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants Internal Revenue Service 25 and United States of America and against plaintiff V. Steven Booth and to close this 26 action. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 Dated: July 9, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 5 1 66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
