Freedman v. Fed. Elections Comm'n
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-cv-01542 (RCL) |
| Decision Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Parties | JOSHUA FREEDMAN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Currently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11 pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1), and a Memorandum in Support (“MTD Mem.”), ECF No. 11-1, filed by Defendant, the Federal Election Commission (“the Commission”). In response, Plaintiff Joshua Freedman proceeding pro se, submitted an Opposition (“Opp'n”), ECF No. 15, to which the Commission has filed a Reply, ECF No. 16. For the reasons explained below, the Commission's Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this case will be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Commission is an independent agency possessing exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret, and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”). See generally 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30107. It is also tasked with the formulation of related policy and rules, see id. §§ 30106(b)(1) 30107(a)(8), 30111(a)(8), the investigation of potential violations of those rules, and, if necessary, the initiation of civil enforcement actions for such violations, see id. §§ 30109(a)(1)-(2), (a)(6), 30106(b)(1). The FECA allows a claimant to file an administrative complaint with the Commission alleging a violation of the statute. See id. § 30109(a)(1); see also 11 C.F.R. § 111.4. After review of the record, the Commission determines whether there is “reason to believe” that FECA has been violated, i.e., probable cause for an investigation. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2).
Plaintiff filed an Administrative Complaint (“Admin Compl.”) with the Commission on October 5, 2020. MTD Mem. at 3 (citing the Admin. Compl., dated 10/5/20) (available at https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7811/, the Commission's website with links to the administrative record) (“Admin. Link”) (last visited on 8/18/23). In the Administrative Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Reddit, Inc. (“Reddit”), a social news aggregation and media website, violated provisions of the FECA governing campaign finance disclosure, see 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a), by making prohibited and unreported in-kind corporate donations during the 2020 presidential election to unspecified federal candidates and political committees, as demonstrated by its alleged selective removal of opposing website content, see MTD Mem. at 3-4 (citing Admin Compl. at 1-2); see also Compl. Exhibits, ECF No. 1-1, at 3-13[1](the Commission's Notice of Final Decision to Plaintiff, dated 2/2/22) (“Admin. Dec.”) (also available at Admin. Link), at 3-4. In support, Plaintiff included examples of removed posts, “shadowbanned” and deleted users and comments, suspended members of certain Reddit communities, his own temporary ban from the platform for a comment relating to the Black Lives Matter movement, and the permanent ban received by a Reddit group comprised of supporters of former President Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate. See Admin. Dec. at 1; Admin. Compl. at 1-3, 5, 8-13. Plaintiff also conjectured that Reddit “may” have been receiving “money from the U.S. [] Government in return of manipulation.” See Admin. Compl. at 3.
Upon receipt, the Commission designated the Administrative Complaint as “MUR [Matter Under Review] 7811.” See MTD Mem. at 4 (citing generally to Admin. Link). The Commission then notified Reddit, see id.; see also Notification of Admin. Compl. to Reddit (dated 10/7/20) (available at Admin. Link), which did not respond,[2] see Compl. at 1; Opp'n at 2; Admin. Dec. at 1, and on April 28, 2021, the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) submitted a Report to the Commission, see MTD Mem. at 4 (citing the OGC's Report, dated 4/28/21) (“OGC Report”) (available at Admin. Link). In that Report, the OGC recommended that the Commission find that there is no reason to believe that Reddit made any in-kind corporate contributions in the federal election, and that it therefore did not violate 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) or 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b), both of which prohibit such contributions. See id. (citing OCG Report at 2).
Upon review, on January 25, 2022, the Commission formally agreed with the OCG, finding that there was no reason to believe that Reddit had made any prohibited in-kind contributions. See id. at 4-5 (citing Commission Certification, dated 1/25/22) (“Com'n Cert.”) (available at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7811/7811 04.pdf (Commission's website with link to Com'n Cert.) (last visited on 8/18/23). More specifically, the Commission found that Plaintiff's allegations were “vague, speculative, and do not appear to specify facts that reasonably suggest Reddit engaged in any activities for the purpose of influencing a federal election or coordinated with any candidate or committee.” Id. at 5 (quoting Admin. Dec.).
On February 2, 2022, the Commission sent, to both Plaintiff and Reddit, Notices of Dismissal, accompanied copies of its Final Decision. See id. at 5 (citing Admin. Dec.); see also Notice of Admin. Dec. to Reddit, dated 2/2/22 (available at Admin. Link.). Plaintiff's Notice also advised him that he could “seek judicial review of the Commission's dismissal of this action[,] and for reference, cited to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) (). See id. (citing Admin. Dec. at 5).
Shortly thereafter, on February 28, 2022, Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commission's dismissal of his Administrative Complaint, by filing a lawsuit pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Freedman v. Fed. Elec. Com'n, No. 22-cv-298, 2022 WL 1571775, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2022). On April 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge, Hon. William I. Arbuckle, reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendations, and found, inter alia, that Plaintiff did “not have a cause of action in” the Middle District of Pennsylvania, because under § 30109(a)(8)(A), the only venue designated to handle such a claim is this District. See id. at *4-*5. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle recommended that the matter either be dismissed without prejudice or transferred to this District. See id. at *5. On May 18, 2022, District Judge, Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo, adopted in part the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, and elected to dismiss the case without prejudice. See Freedman, No. 22-cv-298, 2022 WL 1570472, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2022).
On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this District, in which he again seeks review, pursuant to 52 § 30109(a)(8)(A), of the Commission's dismissal of his Administrative Complaint. See Compl. at 1-2. More specifically, he asks this Court to find that the Commission committed error and to then remand the matter back to the Commission to initiate an investigation.[3]See id. In the Complaint, Plaintiff (1) acknowledges his error in originally filing for review in the wrong District, (2) reiterates his contention that “political comments on the public forum Reddit[] were censored and manipulated[,]” and (3) states his belief that “that the failure of the FEC to investigate [his] [Administrative] [C]omplaint and [its] subsequent closing of the matter was damaging as the information that is to be publicly disclosed to voters is not being publicly disclosed.” See id. at 1-2.
“Article III of the Constitution prescribes that ‘[f]ederal courts are courts of limited subjectmatter jurisdiction' and ‘ha[ve] the power to decide only those cases over which Congress grants jurisdiction.' ” Bronner v. Duggan, 962 F.3d 596, 602 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (alterations in original) (quoting Al-Zahrani v Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315, 317 (D.C. Cir. 2012)); see Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) () (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Federal courts have an obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Relevant here, a defect in “standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) ( that “the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III”). Absent subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, a court must dismiss it. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006) (citing Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating a court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim at issue. Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1103 (2016); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96-97 (2010); Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), a court must accept as true all uncontroverted material factual allegations contained in the complaint and “‘construe the complaint liberally, granting plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged' and upon such facts determine jurisdictional questions.” Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). A court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff, however, if those...
To continue reading
Request your trial