United States District Court, District of Columbia
DAVID S. BRAUN, Plaintiff,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendant.
G. Sullivan United States District Judge
David Steven Braun, alleges that defendant, Office of
Management and Budget (“OMB”), must be compelled
to “process and settle” four claims that Mr.
Braun has submitted to federal agencies requesting various
forms of relief. Mr. Braun asserts that such an order would
be proper under the Barring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(4),
which he submits requires the federal government to settle
before the court are three motions. First, OMB moves to
dismiss Mr. Braun's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Def.'s Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 12. Second, Mr. Braun asks that the Court
order OMB to process one of his four claims
“independently from the other three.”
See Pl.'s Mot. to Process Fourth Claim, ECF No.
15. Third, Mr. Braun requests that the Court schedule a Rule
16 conference so that the parties can move toward summary
judgment. See Pl.'s Mot. for a Rule 16(b)(1)(B)
Conf., ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS OMB's motion to dismiss, and
DENIES Mr. Braun's motion to process the
fourth claim and motion for a Rule 16 conference as moot.
Braun asserts that the basis of this lawsuit are four claims
that he has submitted to various agencies. See
Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. Specifically, he points to the
following four claims:
a. Claim Exhibit 1 shows the submission of a claim based on a
[National Security Agency] record request denial. This falls
under the Privacy Act.
b. Claim Exhibit 2 shows a claim submission based on a
[Federal Communications Commission] record request denial.
This claim is governed buy the Privacy Act.
c. Claim Exhibit 3 shows a claim submission based on a
[Federal Bureau of Investigation] record request denial. This
claim is Governed buy the Privacy Act.
d. Claim Exhibit 4 shows a claim that was based on add hock
court cases and tort submissions as well as one privacy act
case. This was small and intended to be processed easily and
Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1 at 2.
Braun also attaches 33 pages of exhibits to his complaint.
See ECF No. 1-1. Mr. Braun's exhibits indicate
that the first claim at issue in this lawsuit was created
“when the [National Security Agency] FOIA/PA office
denied [his] record request for result of
investigation/contacts” that he had made to that
agency. Compl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Mr. Braun states that
he “did notify the agency that [he] believed [he] had a
claim with a standard form 95 on 2/3/2014.”
Id. Mr. Braun acknowledges that a magistrate
judge in a federal civil suit related to his records request
to the National Security Agency dismissed Mr. Braun's
case after finding that the records were properly withheld by
the agency. Id.
Braun's second claim was submitted to OMB as an
“official request to initiate a settlement/claim
against the U.S. government for correcting the liability that
was created when the [Federal Communications Commission]
Denied [his] [FOIA] request's for results off
investigation from the consumer call Center and [Federal
Communications Commission] Enforcement.” Compl. Ex. 2,
ECF 1-1 at 2. Mr. Braun again acknowledges that a federal
court upheld the agency's denial of his record request.
Id. Mr. Braun further asserts that, after the denial
of his request, he submitted a claim on Standard Form 95 to
the Federal Communications Commission in which he had
requested $300, 000 “a month for life in financial
Braun's third claim was also submitted to OMB. This claim
related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's denial
of a “records request for all off the results for
requested criminal investigations.” Compl. Ex. 3, ECF
No. 1-1 at 3. Mr. Braun again acknowledges that a federal
court found that the records were properly withheld and ...