Muzumala v. Mayorkas

Background

Joshua Muzumala, who was representing himself, brought an action under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law that gives the public access to certain records held by federal executive agencies. He alleged that the Department of Homeland Security, its secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, its director, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to respond adequately to requests for records. He also asserted claims under 6 U.S.C. § 345, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ee-1, and 18 U.S.C. § 242, alleging a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights.

Muzumala described alleged harassment and surveillance by neighbors and an unidentified person whom he believed was connected to law enforcement or immigration enforcement. He also alleged that he was exposed to irritant gas and other technologies. He said he contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about a civil-rights complaint and submitted a records request to that agency. He also submitted a records request to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services concerning his residency status. The opinion states that records were produced in response to the latter request, with some pages released in part and three pages withheld under a law-enforcement exemption. Muzumala challenged those withholdings and other alleged immigration-related activities.

Court’s analysis

Because Muzumala had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court applied the ordinary requirement that a complaint contain enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, while construing a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Freedom of Information Act claim

The court explained that a records requester generally must complete the agency’s administrative appeal process before seeking judicial review. Muzumala alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but he did not allege that he appealed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to respond to his request. The court granted him leave to replead the Freedom of Information Act claim against the Federal Bureau of Investigation by alleging additional facts showing exhaustion before he filed the action.

The court also allowed service on Immigration and Customs Enforcement in connection with the Freedom of Information Act claim. It instructed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and carry out service on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the United States. The opinion does not state that the court finally resolved the merits of the records dispute.

Other statutory claims

The court held that none of the other four statutes invoked by Muzumala supplied an independent cause of action. It stated that 42 U.S.C. § 2000ee-1 establishes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board but does not allow a private lawsuit; 6 U.S.C. § 345 establishes an office within the Department of Homeland Security but does not create an individual cause of action; 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act, does not independently create a claim for relief; and 18 U.S.C. § 242 is a criminal statute that does not provide a private cause of action.

Constitutional claims

The court treated Muzumala’s constitutional claims against the federal agencies and officials as claims under Bivens, a doctrine that can sometimes allow damages suits against individual federal officers for constitutional violations. The court held that sovereign immunity, which generally protects the United States and its agencies from suit without consent, barred the constitutional claims against the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Director Tae Johnson in their official capacities. The court also stated that Muzumala had not alleged personal involvement by the individual officials, and that the officials did not appear to have been sued in their personal capacities.

The court further stated that, in any event, the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule foreclosed a Bivens action against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials because the claims implicated national security. The conclusion states that the court dismissed, as barred by sovereign immunity, Muzumala’s claims against the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Mayorkas and Johnson in their official capacities.

Motions and disposition

The court denied Muzumala’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal later, explaining that the case was still too early for the court to assess its merits. The court granted the motion for an order of service to the extent set forth in the order and directed service on Immigration and Customs Enforcement through the U.S. Marshals Service. It granted leave to file a third amended complaint addressing exhaustion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation records claim. The court also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Judge

The order was issued by United States District Judge John G. Koeltl.