Martinez v. Admin Ofc of the US Courts

Case: 22-50227 Document: 00516675025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50227
Summary Calendar FILED
March 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Jose Martinez, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
named as Administrative Office of US Courts,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CV-1200
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Martinez, an inmate proceeding pro se, challenges the dismissal
of his complaint brought against the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts (the “AOUSC”). In his initial complaint, Martinez alleged
that he mailed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
5 U.S.C. § 552, to the AOUSC, asking for the “original/unaltered audio
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50227 Document: 00516675025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 22-50227
recordings” from the criminal trial that resulted in his incarceration.
Martinez alleged that the AOUSC failed to respond to his request within the
time prescribed under FOIA. Martinez thus sought an injunction requiring
AOUSC to “produce the requested audio recordings.” The district court
dismissed the complaint after screening Martinez’s claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, reasoning that he failed to state a claim because the AOUSC is not
subject to FOIA. The court, however, granted Martinez leave to amend his
complaint. In his amended complaint, the substance of Martinez’s
allegations remains largely unchanged. Notably, though, he has excised any
reference to FOIA; instead, he generically refers to “a request for
information” that he submitted to AOUSC. Martinez now seeks either “an
order, injunction, and/or writ of mandamus requiring the AOUSC to
respond to [his] request.” After screening the amended complaint, the
district court dismissed it with prejudice pursuant to § 1915A for the same
reason that it dismissed his original complaint: the court explained that the
AOUSC is not subject to FOIA, maintaining that Martinez’s “request” in
his amended complaint was equivalent to the “FOIA request” in his initial
complaint.
On appeal, Martinez contends that the district court did not afford
him the liberal pleading standards to which pro se litigants are entitled. He
also challenges the court’s characterization of the “request” referred to in
his amended complaint as a “FOIA request,” arguing that the court was
permitted to consider only the facts alleged in his amended complaint, which
made no reference to FOIA. Martinez asserts that the court’s description of
his “request” as a “FOIA request” evinces that it incorrectly considered
facts that were only located in his initial complaint in dismissing his amended
complaint.
We review a § 1915A dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo using
the same standard applicable to claims challenged under Federal Rule of Civil
2
Case: 22-50227 Document: 00516675025 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 22-50227
Procedure 12(b)(6). Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415,
419 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The district court interpreted Martinez’s
complaint as a request for mandamus relief. To obtain mandamus relief, a
party must establish that “(1) ‘no other adequate means [exist] to attain the
relief he desires,’ (2) the party’s ‘right to issuance of the writ is “clear and
indisputable,”’ and (3) ‘the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in
original) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004)). The AOUSC is not subject to FOIA requests. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 551(1)(B) (for the purposes of FOIA, “‘agency’ . . . does not
include . . . the courts of the United States”); accord Warth v. Dep’t of Just.,
595 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Courts are exempt from . . . FOIA’s
disclosure requirements,” and because “a trial transcript is a court
document” it is “not obtainable pursuant to . . . FOIA.”); Banks v. Dep’t of
Just., 538 F. Supp. 2d 228, 232 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[T]he Administrative
Office of the United States Courts is an arm of the federal courts and
therefore is not subject to FOIA . . . .”).
Here, Martinez does not disclaim the allegation in his initial complaint
that he submitted a FOIA request to the AOUSC; rather, he readily admits
that he “intentionally omitted” this detail from his amended complaint to
“circumvent” the reasoning used by the district court in its original dismissal
order. Because the AOUSC is not required to respond to FOIA requests,
Martinez cannot show that his right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus is
“clear and indisputable.” See Hollingsworth, 558 U.S. at 190. Therefore, the
amended complaint fails to state a claim, even when liberally construed. See
Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.
3