Ellis v. State of California Franchise Tax Board
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-06175
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Ellis v. Franchise Tax Board, Judge White granted dismissal because the federal records law does not cover state agencies and denied Ellis’s motion to strike.
Michael E. Ellis’s complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. The State of California Franchise Tax Board obtained dismissal of the case, and Ellis’s motion to strike was denied.
What happened
Michael E. Ellis sued the State of California Franchise Tax Board, claiming it violated the Freedom of Information Act by not responding to his request for records. He also referred to California’s public-records law.
The court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss. It ruled that the federal law applies only to federal agencies, not state agencies, and that Ellis had not stated a California-law claim in his complaint. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend and denied Ellis’s motion to strike the dismissal motion.
Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order on October 19, 2021. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and case-management conference and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ellis v. State of California Franchise Tax Board · No. 4:21-cv-06175
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 19, 2021
Background
Michael E. Ellis, appearing without a lawyer, sued the State of California Franchise Tax Board under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. He alleged that he submitted a records request around June 17, 2021, and that the Franchise Tax Board did not respond as required or request more time to respond. He sought a declaration that the failure to respond was unlawful and an order requiring the Board to provide responsive records, identify a valid exemption, or state that no responsive records existed.
Ellis also cited the California Public Records Act and alleged that the Board refused to correct records concerning him. The opinion describes his complaint as presenting one claim for relief based on the alleged failure to respond to his FOIA request.
Motions and Analysis
The Franchise Tax Board moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Ellis moved to strike the dismissal motion.
The court held that FOIA applies only to federal agencies, not state agencies. Because the Franchise Tax Board is a state agency, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Ellis’s FOIA claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court also held that Ellis had not stated a claim under California law in his current complaint. It further concluded that, without a valid federal claim, it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a possible California-law claim. The court noted that a California-law claim might be brought in state court, but that such a claim did not establish jurisdiction in this federal court.
The court denied Ellis’s motion to strike because a motion to dismiss is not a pleading and therefore is not the proper subject of a motion to strike. The court also stated that the dismissal motion did not contain redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material.
Disposition
Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the Franchise Tax Board’s motion to dismiss and denied Ellis’s motion to strike. The court found that amendment would be futile because FOIA does not provide a claim for records requested from a state agency. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, ordered that a separate judgment be issued, and directed the clerk to close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.