Heineman v. Hinds, No. 23-00448, 2024 WL 3047562 (D. Nev. June 17, 2024) (Dorsey, J.)

Heineman v. Hinds, No. 23-00448, 2024 WL 3047562 (D. Nev. June 17, 2024) (Dorsey, J.)

Re:  Request for grand jury documents from plaintiff’s criminal prosecution

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  The court finds that, “[a]s the defendants correctly point out, [plaintiff] has targeted the wrong defendants with this lawsuit.”  “In actions arising under FOIA, the proper defendant is the federal agency, not any individual employees of the agency.”  “Here, [plaintiff] names as defendants in the caption of his amended complaint no agencies – just three individuals:  Merrick Garland, United States Attorney General; [an] United States Attorney; and [an] Assistant United States Attorney.”  “Because none of these defendants is an agency, [plaintiff’s] FOIA claim cannot be brought against them.”  “So [the court] grant[s] the motion to dismiss [plaintiff’s] amended complaint for failure to state a plausible claim.”

• Exemption 3:  The court holds that “[plaintiff’s] amended complaint must be dismissed for the secondary reason that his allegations fail to state a legally viable theory of relief.”  “By this action, [plaintiff] seeks to compel the disclosure of the grand-jury concurrence form from his prior criminal case – a request that has been denied based on FOIA.”  “[D]efendants argue that the grand-jury documents that [plaintiff] seeks are exempt from disclosure under a combination of FOIA Exemption 3 and FRCP 6(e), which prohibit the release of the grand-jury concurrence forms absent a showing of a particular need.”  The court finds that “although the need for continued secrecy is less obvious now that [plaintiff’s] criminal case is closed, ‘the interests in grand[-]jury secrecy . . . are not eliminated merely because the grand jury has ended its activities.’”  “The balance between a reduced need for secrecy weighed against no particularized need whatsoever tips in favor of nondisclosure.”  “Because [plaintiff] has not alleged facts articulating a particularized need for the grand-jury concurrence forms, he has not stated a claim under FOIA.”  However, “[b]ecause it is not yet certain that [plaintiff] cannot allege additional, true facts that show that he can overcome the restrictions of Exemption 3 and FRCP 6(e), and FRCP 15(a)(2) requires courts to freely give leave to amend when justice so requires, [the court] give[s] him one more chance to amend his complaint before [it] dismiss[es] this case with prejudice.”  The court cautions that “[it] grant[s] him leave to file an amended complaint nonetheless if he can name as the defendant the proper target agency and allege true facts showing a particularized need for the documents that he wants disclosed.”