Meyer v. John/Jane Doe
- Donovan Frank
- 0:24-cv-00549
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Meyer v. John/Jane Doe, Judge Docherty granted amendment, vacated dismissal as moot, and granted in part and denied in part other motions without deciding constitutional claims.
Scott Meyer must proceed under his amended complaint and must file proof of service within 14 days or explain in writing why he has good cause not to do so. Merrick Garland was terminated from the matter. The constitutional claims were not decided.
What happened
In Scott Meyer v. John/Jane Doe, Meyer alleged that federal officials violated his Second and Fifth Amendment rights. He brought claims against Attorney General Merrick Garland and an unnamed Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, based on allegations similar to those in a prior related case.
The court granted in part and denied in part Meyer’s request for judicial notice and consolidation: it allowed notice of filings in the related case but denied consolidation for failure to meet and confer. It granted Meyer leave to amend, vacated the Attorney General’s dismissal motion as moot, and terminated Garland from the matter. It denied Meyer’s motion to compel a response to a Freedom of Information Act request and his request for a declaration about service.
Judge John F. Docherty did not decide the constitutional claims. The amended complaint became the operative pleading, and Meyer was ordered to file proof of service within 14 days or explain in writing why he had good cause not to do so.
The detailed version
- Meyer v. John/Jane Doe · No. 0:24-cv-00549
- Donovan Frank
- Sept. 3, 2024
Background
Scott Meyer sued Attorney General Merrick Garland and an unnamed Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, alleging violations of his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The allegations were essentially the same as those in a prior related proceeding involving the denial of a firearm purchase permit. Meyer initially sued Garland in both his individual and official capacities, but later dismissed the individual-capacity claims. He then moved to amend his complaint. The proposed amended complaint no longer named Garland and added several other defendants.
The opinion addresses four motions by Meyer and Garland’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether Meyer’s constitutional claims were legally valid.
Judicial notice and consolidation
Meyer asked the court to take judicial notice of the related case and its electronic filings, or alternatively to consolidate the cases. The court granted the request for judicial notice as to the filings in the related case. It denied the request for consolidation because Meyer’s meet-and-confer statement addressed judicial notice but did not address consolidation. The court did not reach the defendants’ alternative argument that Meyer had not shown a sufficient basis for consolidation.
Amendment and dismissal motion
The court granted Meyer’s motion for leave to amend. Because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint and no longer named Garland, the court vacated Garland’s motion to dismiss as moot and terminated Garland from the matter. The court expressly made no findings about the merits of the original motion to dismiss.
Freedom of Information Act request
Meyer moved under the Freedom of Information Act to compel a response to a prior request made to the FBI. The court held that the statute requires a person challenging an agency’s failure to provide records to file a complaint in a separate civil action. A motion to compel filed in an existing civil case was not the required pleading. Because Meyer had not filed a separate complaint, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the request and denied the motion.
Request for declaratory relief and service
Meyer requested a declaration that service on unnamed FBI personnel in their official capacities was adequate. The court denied the request because it did not state any grounds for the requested relief. The court also explained that a request for a court order must be made by a motion complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota’s local rules.
The court ordered Meyer to file proof of service of the amended complaint within 14 days of the order or to advise the court in writing of good cause for not doing so. It stated that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
The order’s dispositions were:
- Meyer’s motion for judicial notice and/or consolidation: granted in part and denied in part. - Garland’s motion to dismiss: vacated as moot. - Meyer’s motion for leave to amend: granted. - Garland: terminated from the matter. - Meyer’s motion to compel a response to the Freedom of Information Act request: denied. - Meyer’s request for declaratory relief: denied.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.