Marsh v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JUSTIN ARIC MARSH
V. 	CASE NO. 5:23-CV-5064
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
through Director Christopher Wray in his Official Capacity
ORDER
US DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTR ICT OF ARKAN SAS
FILED
JAN 2 4 2025
Ronald E. Dowling
By_ 	__,,..-----=-:-:---
PL~INt~
DEFENDANT
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (''R&R") (Doc. 36 ) of the
Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 37) on January 23 , 2025 , which prompted the
Court to review the entire case file de nova.
Plaintiff contends that he was erroneously found guilty of felony failure to appear
in state court. Many years later, a state court judge dismissed and sealed the conviction .
Then , in 2021 , Plaintiff attempted to buy a firearm and was denied because a criminal
background check flagged the dismissed felony conviction . He filed the instant lawsuit
seeking a legal declaration that he is entitled to purchase a firearm and an order enjoining
the FBI from denying him the right to purchase a firearm in the future .
Once the lawsuit was filed , the FBI investigated Plaintiffs claims and corrected his
record in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). After that, the
FBI issued him a Unique Personal Identification Number (UPIN) that Plaintiff admits "will
authorize" him to purchase a firearm "when given to an FFL [Federal Firearm Licensee]. "
(Doc. 33 , p. 1). Though Plaintiff admits that he has not attempted to purchase a firearm
1
Case 5:23-cv-05064-TLB-CDC Document 39 Filed 01/24/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

since being given a UPIN , he seems to be wor ried-without citing any reasons why-that
the UPIN may not be effective. Further, he contends-again , without cause-that the FBI
may be setting a "honey trap" to bait him into buying a firearm and "prosecute [him] for
the purchase ." Id. at p. 2. He also seeks leave to add a claim against the United States
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his constitutional right to bear arms under the
Second Amendment.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the providing Plaintiff with a UPIN
moots his case or controversy. No further relief is available under 18 U.S.C. § 925A. As
the Court lacks jurisdiction over a moot claim , the case is subject to dismissal on that
basis . As to Plaintiffs separate request to add a § 1983 claim , this issue was already
addressed in an Order (Doc. 35) issued on January 8, 2025 . The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge's reasoning in that Order; allowing Plaintiff to add a § 1983 claim would
be futi le .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objection is OVERRULED and the
R&R (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The case is DISMISSED as moot.
Further, there is no legal basis for the Court to award attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiff.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and CLOSE THE CASE.
IT 15 50 ORDERED on this 24th day of Janu 	, 2025.
RICT JUDGE
2
Case 5:23-cv-05064-TLB-CDC Document 39 Filed 01/24/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>