Bush v. Becerra
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-07472
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bush v. Becerra, Judge Illston dismissed William David Bush’s complaint without leave to amend after screening it under the federal indigency statute.
William David Bush’s lawsuit was dismissed, and he was not given permission to amend the complaint. Xavier Becerra was the defendant.
What happened
William David Bush, representing himself, sued Xavier Becerra under the Administrative Procedure Act. Bush asked the court to order Becerra to enforce the Filled Milk Act, alleging that milk he bought was an illegal imitation product and caused stomach indigestion.
The court said the complaint was virtually identical to Bush’s earlier related case, which had been dismissed without leave to amend. In that earlier case, the court explained that the law generally does not allow a court to order an agency to broadly enforce a statute; a claim based on agency inaction must identify a specific action the agency was legally required to take.
Judge Susan Illston dismissed this case without leave to amend. The court also said Bush could appeal this case or the earlier case and advised that future Northern District of California lawsuits against Becerra seeking enforcement of the Filled Milk Act would be related to Judge Illston.
The detailed version
- Bush v. Becerra · No. 3:21-cv-07472
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 6, 2021
Background
William David Bush filed this self-represented lawsuit against Xavier Becerra, identified in the opinion as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Bush was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee based on financial hardship. The court therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from that relief.
The complaint asserted one claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. Bush sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order directing Becerra to enforce the Filled Milk Act. Bush alleged that he bought Clover’s Stornetta milk believing it was advertised as organic Grade A milk, but that it was instead an imitation filled-milk product containing red palm seed oil. He alleged that he experienced stomach indigestion as a result.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the complaint was virtually identical to Bush’s earlier related case, No. 3:21-cv-06055-SI. In that earlier proceeding, the court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The reasoning quoted in this order explained that a claim based on an agency’s failure to act under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) must identify a discrete agency action that the agency was required to take. It cannot be a broad request for a court to supervise an agency’s general compliance with a statute.
The court concluded that the current complaint had the same deficiencies as the earlier complaint. The opinion does not separately analyze additional claims because it identifies only one cause of action and relies on the earlier ruling’s reasoning.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the case without leave to amend. It advised Bush that he could file a notice of appeal of this case and/or the earlier case. The court also advised that future lawsuits Bush files in the Northern District of California against Becerra seeking enforcement of the Filled Milk Act would be related to Judge Illston under the court’s local rule.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.