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.

Perron v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

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

February 13, 2018

BRANDON PERRON, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This 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 Defendant's Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The 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 Cir. 2007).

         Plaintiff, 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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. Id.

         Plaintiff 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.

         On June 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.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. FRCP 12(b)(1)

         Federal 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.”).

         A party 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 ...


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.