Begay v. National Archives and Record Administration
Civil Action No. 2021-0782
| D.D.C. | Oct 6, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Ivan Ray Begay, a pro se prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2001 to multiple counts of aggravated sexual abuse.
- Years later Begay submitted FOIA requests seeking records and biological evidence related to his prosecution; EOUSA located the criminal-file records at the National Archives (NARA/Federal Records Center).
- Begay sued the National Archives alleging FOIA violations and a First Amendment violation (right to petition); he sought release and testing of a biological swab, $1,000,000 in damages, appointment of counsel, and a jury trial.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the First Amendment claim and certain requested remedies, and moved to strike the jury demand.
- The Court evaluated pleading standards for a pro se plaintiff and the available remedies under FOIA before ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withholding of requested records states a First Amendment right-to-petition claim | Begay: withholding records violates his First Amendment petition right | NARA: no constitutional right to obtain particular government information; FOIA remedies are statutory | Court dismissed the First Amendment claim for failure to state a claim |
| Whether Begay is entitled to a jury trial in this FOIA action | Begay demanded a jury trial | NARA: FOIA provides equitable relief only and the Seventh Amendment does not provide a jury right against the Government; statute supplies no jury right | Court struck the jury demand as immaterial |
| Whether Begay can obtain testing of evidence, monetary damages, and appointed counsel via FOIA | Begay requested testing of biological swab, $1,000,000, and appointed counsel | NARA: FOIA does not authorize monetary relief or the specific testing remedy; appointment of counsel is discretionary and unwarranted here | Court declined to dismiss those requests at this stage but noted FOIA authorizes only injunctive relief/production; appointment of counsel not shown warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (First Amendment petition-right principle)
- Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (no constitutional right to particular government information)
- McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (no constitutional right to all information provided by FOIA laws)
- Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (Seventh Amendment test: legal vs. equitable relief)
- Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (Seventh Amendment generally inapplicable in actions against the Government)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (FOIA actions governed by traditional equitable jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (FOIA provides injunctive relief only)
- Cause of Action Inst. v. Office of Management & Budget, 10 F.4th 849 (interpretation of FOIA remedies under § 552(a)(4)(B))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Herron v. Fannie Mae, 861 F.3d 160 (Rule 12(b)(6) standards applied)