Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 GEORGE WILLIAM VETTER,

No. 2:25-cv-11263-JFW-BFM

13 Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

LONG BEACH POLICE DISMISSED

15 DEPARTMENT,

16 Defendant.

17

18 SUMMARY OF ORDER

19 This action involves a pro se complaint filed by Plaintiff George William

20 Vetter. The Complaint, captioned as a “Notice of Appeal,” challenges the Long

21 Beach Police Department’s denial of Plaintiff’s request under the Freedom of

22 Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

23 Plaintiff meets the financial requirement to proceed without prepayment

24 of fees. When evaluating Plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status,

25 however, the Court is required to dismiss the case or its claims if it determines

26 that Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

27 1915(e). It appears that may be the case here since the Complaint does not

28 appear to allege a viable federal claim.

1 The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to explain why these claims should

2 not be dismissed. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to timely respond to

3 this order, the Court may recommend that this action be dismissed

4 without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

5

6 ANALYSIS

7 A. Legal Standard

8 Where a plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court

9 is required to review the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous,

10 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek

11 monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

12 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)

13 (en banc) (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a

14 district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

15 claim.”). In determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts

16 as true the factual claims in the Complaint and views all inferences in a light

17 most favorable to him. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011).

18 The Court does not, however, “accept as true allegations that are merely

19 conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”

20 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

21 Because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, the Court construes the

22 Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2008)

23 (per curiam).

24 B. Factual Background

25 The Complaint alleges the following facts, taken as true for purposes of

26 this Order:

27 On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff made three Freedom of Information Act

28 requests to the City of Long Beach and the Long Beach Police Department.

1 (ECF 1 (“Compl.”) at 2.) The first request sought disclosure of a March 2001

2 memorandum by the Chief Deputy Mayor of Long Beach that ordered an

3 independent investigation of the rape of a Long Beach Police officer. (Compl. ¶

4 2.) The second request sought Long Beach Police Department’s internal affairs

5 investigative reports of the then police captain. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Finally, Plaintiff

6 requested copies of a “Behavioral Analysis” report that Plaintiff alleges was

7 fabricated. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

8 Plaintiff’s requests were denied on October 13, 2025. (Compl. at 1.)

9 C. Analysis

10 Plaintiff’s sole claim is for a violation of the Freedom of Information Act,

11 5 U.S.C. § 552. FOIA, however, does not apply to municipal entities such as the

12 City of Long Beach and LBPD. St. Michael’s Convalescent Hosp. v. State of Cal.,

13 643 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) (under FOIA,

14 the term “agency” includes “any executive department, military department,

15 Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other

16 establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the

17 Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency”). As

18 such, denial of Plaintiff’s request for information by these entities was not a

19 violation of FOIA.

20 To the extent that Plaintiff intended to allege that denial of his FOIA

21 request amounts to a due process violation, that claim would also fail. The

22 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the government from

23 depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

24 U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. It is unclear, however, which liberty or property

25 interest would be implicated by denying a FOIA request. FOIA “merely provides

26 an avenue and a remedy for an individual to seek and obtain records of an

27 administrative agency. It does not provide a litigant with other actions and

28

1 || remedies against the United States.” Gasparutti v. United States, 22 F. Supp.

2 || 241114, 1117 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

3 Moreover, a Plaintiff alleging a constitutional injury against a municipal

4 || entity must identify an official policy or custom that caused their injury. Bd. of

5 || Cnty. Comm’s v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Here, the Complaint does

6 || not point to a policy or custom as the cause of Plaintiff's injury; the Complaint

7 || alleges that Captain Megas ordered Plaintiff's FOIA request denied but does not

8 || allege why Megas issued such an order (1.e., that she was acting pursuant to a

9 || policy or custom). Even if Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Captain

10 || Megas as a Defendant, as just stated, denying a FOJA request does not appear

11 |} implicate Plaintiff's due process rights.

12

13 CONCLUSION

14 For these reasons, it appears that in forma pauperis status should be

15 || denied and the case dismissed. Before the Court recommends denial of the IFP

16 || application, however, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to respond.

17 || Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause—to explain in writing—why the

18 || Court should not recommend denial of IFP status. Plaintiffs response should be

19 || filed no later than February 23, 2026.

20

21 || DATED: January 22, 2026

22

23

BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF

24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28