Biesenbach v. City And County Of San Francisco

Background

Klaus Biesenbach filed a petition seeking an order requiring the City and County of San Francisco to report cybersecurity incidents to the Transportation Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. He also asked the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General to oversee cybersecurity compliance at San Francisco International Airport.

Biesenbach alleged that he was targeted by cyberattacks while using San Francisco International Airport’s public Wi-Fi and while aboard a flight. He stated that he tried to report the alleged breach to the San Francisco Police Department but was not permitted to file a report.

His additional requests sought orders requiring federal agencies to investigate cybersecurity failures, requiring San Francisco and United Airlines to implement security measures, and recognizing him as a victim of the Office of Personnel Management data breach. He cited 6 C.F.R. § 226.3, Transportation Security Administration Security Directive 1542-21-01, and 49 U.S.C. § 44903.

Fee-waiver application and screening

Biesenbach applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court found that the information in his application showed he could not pay the fee. But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court also had to dismiss the case if it determined that the action was frivolous or failed to state a claim.

Court’s analysis

The court held that federal district courts do not have authority to issue a mandamus order—a court order compelling an official to perform a legal duty—to direct state officials to perform their duties. It therefore found frivolous Biesenbach’s request to compel the City and County of San Francisco to act. The court also held that mandamus was unavailable to compel United Airlines, which it treated as a private company rather than a federal officer or employee.

The court separately ruled that mandamus relief was unavailable for the requests involving the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. Biesenbach did not identify a duty that those agencies owed to him, so his claims were not sufficiently clear and certain for mandamus relief.

The court also found the request concerning the Office of Personnel Management data breach unclear because Biesenbach did not identify whom he wanted the court to compel or what legal duty that person or entity owed him. The court stated that it did not need to address Biesenbach’s cited legal violations because he did not present them as separate claims from his requests for relief.

Disposition

The court denied Biesenbach’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee because it found the underlying petition frivolous. It dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), ordered the clerk to close the case, and terminated the fee-waiver application. The opinion’s signature block does not clearly identify the judge by name.