United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (“FBI” or
“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 11.
Plaintiff did not file a response to this Motion. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
following is taken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,
which is assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion
to dismiss. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th
proceeding pro se, brings this action against
Defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”), the FBI National Instant Criminal
Background Check (“FBI NICS”) Division, FBI NICS
officers, and United States Attorney for the Western District
of Washington, Annette L. Hayes, claiming erroneous denial of
a firearm. Dkt. # 9 (Amended Complaint) at 2.
alleges that on March 13, 2015, he attempted to purchase a
firearm and that the transaction was denied by the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”)
because of a prior conviction. Id. He alleges that
he had further communications with NICS disputing this denial
and the reasons for it. Id. On August 12, 2015,
Plaintiff alleges that he received a notification that there
was insufficient evidence to overturn his denial. Plaintiff
responded several times but received no further
communications from NICS. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
he lost “countless hours of recreation” due to
this denial. Id.
further alleges that in 2014, a man named Kevin Maitland
began threatening to kill him. Dkt. # 9 at 3. He reported
these threats to the San Jose Police Department, the Gilroy
Police Department, and the San Benito County Sheriff
Department. Id. On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff received
a subpoena to be witness at a trial against Mr. Maitland.
Id. Plaintiff contends that he moved to Washington
State because he feared for his life and attempted to
purchase a firearm because he had reason to believe that Mr.
Maitland knew of his move and was a continuing threat.
requests that the Court order that: (1) the names of all
employees that worked on his case be disclosed so that they
may be served; (2) FBI NICS “properly investigate
denial appeals”; (3) FBI NICS allow his purchase of a
firearm to proceed; (4) all background checks be passed
“as long as the NICS division of the FBI is
closed”; (5) an award of $400 for the filing fee for
this action; and (6) an internal investigation into this
matter with the FBI. Dkt. # 9 at 4.
2, 2017, Defendant FBI filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. # 6. On June 21, 2017,
Plaintiff filed both a Response to Defendant's Motion and
an Amended Complaint. Dkt. ## 9, 10. Defendant then filed
this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), based on Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 11. Plaintiff did not respond to
this Motion, therefore the Court will construe
Plaintiff's previous Response as a response to
Defendant's current Motion.
courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only
hear cases authorized by the Constitution or a statutory
grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of
establishing subject-matter jurisdiction rests upon the party
seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it
is determined that a federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to dismiss the
suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514
(2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.”).
may bring a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction,
and in such cases the court may consider materials beyond the
complaint. PW Arms, Inc. v. United States, 186
F.Supp.3d 1137, 1142 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (citing Savage v.
Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also McCarthy v. United States, 850
F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Moreover, when
considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the
district court is not restricted to the face of the