Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mai v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 8, 2018

DUY T. MAI, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The 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 Cir. 2007).

         Plaintiff 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.

         In 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[1], 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.

         In 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.

         On 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.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. FRCP 12(b)(6)

         Fed. R. 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).

         A court 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).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.