United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
DUY T. MAI, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Dkt. # 4. Plaintiff Duy T. Mai opposes the Motion.
Dkt. # 6. For the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS Defendants' Motion.
following is taken from Plaintiff's Complaint, which is
assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion to
dismiss. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th
brings this action against Defendants United States of
America; the Department of Justice (“DOJ”); the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(“ATF”); the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”); Jefferson B. Sessions III, as Attorney
General; Andrew McCabe, as Acting Director of the FBI; and
Thomas E. Brandon, as Acting Director of the ATF, for alleged
violations of his Second and Fifth Amendment rights. Dkt. # 1
¶¶ 1.1-1.8, 4.1, 4.2.
October of 1999, when Plaintiff was seventeen (17) years old,
he was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment by
the King County Superior Court. Plaintiff's commitment
expired by August 8, 2000, and he has not been committed since.
Id. ¶ 3.1. In 2001, Plaintiff enrolled in
Evergreen Community College where he completed his GED and
earned college credit that enabled him to transfer to the
University of Washington. Id. ¶ 3.3. Plaintiff
graduated from the University of Washington with a
bachelor's of science degree in microbiology. After
graduating, Plaintiff enrolled in a master's program at
the University of Southern California. Id. He
graduated with a master's degree in microbiology in 2009.
Plaintiff then began working at Benaroya Research Institute.
As part of his job, he successfully passed an FBI background
check. Id. ¶ 3.4. In October of 2016, Plaintiff
began working for Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center as
an immune monitoring specialist and is currently employed
there. Id. ¶ 3.6.
2014, Plaintiff petitioned the King County Superior Court
under Washington statute RCW 9.41.047 for restoration of his
firearm rights. Plaintiff supplied the court with medical and
psychological examinations and supportive declarations. His
petition was granted. Id. ¶ 3.9. Plaintiff then
attempted to purchase a firearm and received a denial from
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(“NICS”). NICS informed him that the denial was
based on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). Id. ¶
3.10. Plaintiff subsequently received a phone call from the
ATF, notifying him that the ATF legal department determined
that his state restoration order was not sufficient to
overcome the federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(4). Id. ¶ 3.11.
April 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that
Defendants violated his Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment
rights by denying him the ability to “keep, bear and
purchase” firearms. Id. ¶¶ 4.1, 4.2.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true
conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents
referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint
avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts
consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that
would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563;
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of
the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which
the complaint refers if the document is central to the
party's claims and its authenticity is not in question.
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).
A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial
notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908
(9th Cir. 2003).