Jackson v. DHS, No. 2:25-cv-00790-JAD-DJA (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Jackson v. United States DHS
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Nevada (NV)
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Majority
Jennifer A. Dorsey (J.) (unanimous Court)
Jackson v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2803356Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Nevada.Heyward JACKSON, Jr., Plaintiffv.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., DefendantsCase No.: 2:25-cv-00790-JAD-DJA|Signed October 1, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsHeyward Jackson, Jr., Las Vegas, NV, Pro Se.Cybill L. Dotson, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office, LasVegas, NV, for Defendants.Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing[ECF Nos. 6, 14, 15, 16]Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge*1 When the State of Nevada charged Heyward Jackson,Jr. with Medicaid fraud,1 he retained a private investigatorZachary Stanczak to obtain documents relevant to hisdefense.2 Stanczak submitted two Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA) requests to the Centers for Medicare andMedicaid Services (CMS),3 seeking documents related toCMS's investigation of Jackson.4 CMS denied Stanczak'srequests because the responsive documents containedJackson's confidential information.5 So Jackson sues tocompel production of the documents under FOIA.6 CMSmoves to dismiss Jackson's suit, arguing that he lacks standingbecause he did not personally request the documents.7Because Jackson has not shown that he has standing to bringthis suit, I grant the motion to dismiss.DiscussionFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes federalcourts to dismiss a complaint for want of subject-matterjurisdiction.8 The party asserting federal jurisdiction has theburden of establishing all its requirements, including ArticleIII standing.9 The “irreducible constitutional minimum” ofArticle III standing requires that the plaintiff show “aninjury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actualor imminent,” “that the injury was likely caused by thedefendant,” and “that the injury would likely be redressed byjudicial relief.”10When an agency denies a FOIA request, the requester suffersan injury in fact and has standing to compel productionof the requested documents.11 But federal courts widelyrecognize that a person passively mentioned in the request12or “whose name does not appear on the request lacks standingto sue under FOIA, even if their interest was asserted in therequest.”13*2 Jackson disagrees with that approach. He contends thata plaintiff in his situation has standing under FOIA if hisauthorized agent submitted the request on his behalf.14 Hecites to the Third Circuit case of McDonnell v. United Statesfor that proposition, representing to this court that McDonnellheld that “FOIA does not require the requester to submitthe request himself.”15 Curiously, neither that quote noranything close to that holding appears in McDonnell.16 Infact, the McDonnell court held just the opposite—that “aperson whose name does not appear on a request for recordshas not made a formal request for documents within themeaning of” FOIA and cannot “sue in district court when theagency refuses to release requested documents.”17McDonnell thus demonstrates that Jackson lacks standingto sue. The FOIA requests listed Stanczak as the requesterand Stanczak's company as the organization.18 The requestdescription only passively mentioned Jackson and did notallude to any relationship between Stanczak and Jackson.19Nor does Stanczak's declaration or the communicationshe provided suggest that he informed CMS of theirrelationship.20 Because nothing in Stanczak's FOIA requestsindicates that Jackson was the actual requestor or thatStanczak submitted the requests on Jackson's behalf,21Jackson lacks standing to sue and dismissal is required.Conclusion
Jackson v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that CMS's motion todismiss [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED. Jackson's complaint isDISMISSED for lack of standing. The Clerk of Court isdirected to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSETHIS CASE.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jackson's motion tosupplement the record, expedite relief, and compel disclosureof FOIA records [ECF No. 14] is DENIED;22 and CMS'smotion to strike that motion [ECF No. 15], and Jackson'smotion for leave to file a late opposition to it [ECF No. 16]are DENIED as moot.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2803356Footnotes1ECF No. 14 at 11.2ECF No. 9 at 1.3Id. at 2. CMS is a federal agency within defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services.4Id.5Id.6ECF No. 1 at 4.7ECF No. 6 at 3–4. Jackson subsequently filed a motion to supplement the record, expedite relief, and compeldisclosure of FOIA records, CMS filed a motion to strike, and Jackson then filed a motion for leave to file alate opposition to CMS's motion to strike. ECF Nos. 14–16.8Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).9Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004), abrogated in part on other grounds in LexmarkInt'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 127 (2014).10Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (cleaned up); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413,423 (2021).11A Better Way for BPA v. U.S. Dep't of Energy Bonneville Power Admin., 890 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2018).12Three Forks Ranch Corp. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., Little Snake Field Off., 358 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C.2005); A Better Way for BPA, 890 F.3d at 1187 (noting that FOIA request that listed organization was “nota situation where there was a ‘passing reference’ to the named plaintiff on the FOIA request, ... where theagency had to divine the actual requester, or where counsel dealt with the agency without any indication ofwho was requesting the documents.”).13See, e.g., Unigard Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 997 F. Supp. 1339, 1342 (S.D. Cal. 1997); see also McDonnellv. United States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1236 (3d Cir. 1993); Smallwood v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 266 F. Supp. 3d 217,220 (D.D.C. 2017) (collecting cases). Although the Ninth Circuit has not explicitly held that a plaintiff whosename is not on the request lacks standing to sue under FOIA, it has cited Unigard with approval in the contextof FOIA pattern-and-practices suits. See Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1104 (9thCir. 2016) (citing Unigard, 997 F. Supp. 1339). The Ninth Circuit also implicitly recognized that proposition in
Jackson v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3A Better Way for BPA when it had to decide whether an organization was a requester and thus had standingto sue under FOIA. See A Better Way for BPA, 890 F.3d at 1186.14ECF No. 9 at 3.15Id. (citing McDonnell, 4 F.3d 1227).16Id. Nor does it appear that the other case that Jackson cites to, a district court case purportedly from theEastern District of North Carolina called Sorrells v. United States, exists. ECF No. 9 at 3. Jackson also cites toJud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy for the quote that “an individual or organization may submit a requeston behalf of another person.” ECF No. 9 at 3 (citing Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 310 F. Supp.2d 271 (D.D.C. 2004), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded sub nom. Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of Energy,412 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). That case does not contain that quote. See generally Jud. Watch, Inc., 310F. Supp. 2d 271. This court is seeing increased reliance on AI-generated fake authority and cautions pro selitigants to carefully scrutinize original sources before making representations in court documents.17McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1236–37.18ECF No. 6-2 at 2.19Id.20ECF No. 14 at 9; ECF No. 6-6 at 2.21Cf. A Better Way for BPA, 890 F.3d at 1186 (holding that an organization had standing to sue because therequestor listed the organization in the “organization” field in the FOIA request); Three Forks Ranch, 358 F.Supp. 2d at 3 (holding that corporation did not have standing to assert FOIA claim submitted by its attorneybecause the attorney did not “adequately identify that he [was] making the FOIA request for his client”).22Jackson's motion to supplement the record and expedite this ruling focuses on a declaration from Stanczak,which purportedly establishes that he was Jackson's “authorized agent.” ECF No. 14. The motion does not,however, contain anything that establishes that Jackson actually submitted the requests or that Stanczakinformed the agency that he submitted the requests on Jackson's behalf. See generally ECF Nos. 14, 16.So, permitting that supplementation would be futile because it would not cure Jackson's standing issue, andI deny the motion. And the denial of that motion moots CMS's motion to strike it, ECF No. 15, and Jackson'smotion for leave to file a late opposition to that motion to strike, ECF No. 16.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access