United States District Court, D. Columbia.
JUSTE, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.
MARTINEZ, Federal Agent, JUDY PRESTON, LORETTA LYNCH, LESLIE
CALDWELL, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., JONATHAN M. MALIS, KAROL V.
MASON, BETH MCGARRY, MAUREEN HENNEBERG, DEBORAH CONNER, SALLY
QUILLIAN YATES, BARACK H. OBAMA, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., ASHTON
B. CARTER, WENDY POHLHAUS, VINCENT H. COHEN, JR., CLIFFORD J.
WHITE, III, STUART F. DELERY, BRENDA HORNER, ROBERT F.
MUELLER, SCOTT S. YOCANE, CHRISTOPHER SCHROEDER, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants: Jodi George, LEAD ATTORNEY,
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
MURIEL E. BOWSER, KARL RACINE, Defendants: Portia M.
Roundtree, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Civil Litigation, Washington, DC.
BATES, United States District Judge.
United States removed this pro se case from the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § § 1442(a), 1446 and 2679(d)(2). Not. of
Removal of a Civil Action, ECF No. 1. It contends that the
complaint against the federal defendants seeking $50 million
confers original jurisdiction in this Court under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (" FTCA" ), 28 U.S.C. § 1346.
Id. ¶ ¶ 2, 5 (renumbered). In addition to
the federal defendants, plaintiff has sued District of
Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Attorney General Karl
A. Racine. Pending are the Federal Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 4, and the District of
Columbia Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF
federal defendants seek dismissal on the grounds of sovereign
immunity and frivolousness. The FTCA is a statute that waives
the United States' immunity under certain circumstances,
and the federal defendants have not articulated a specific
reason why dismissal is appropriate under the FTCA.
See Fed. Defs' Mem. of P. & A. at 5-7. Hence,
the Court declines to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.
Court has carefully reviewed plaintiff's allegations in
the original complaint and the supplemental complaint, ECF
No. 12-1, as well as those in the amended complaint, ECF No.
19-1, where plaintiff invokes the Constitution, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and 28 U.S.C. § § 1332 and 1346(b).
See Am. Compl. ¶ 11. As explained below, the
allegations are so lacking in factual or legal support as to
deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court will grant the defendants'
respective motions and will dismiss the case. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action
" at any time" the court determines that subject
matter jurisdiction is lacking).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and it is presumed
that " a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391
(1994); see also GMC v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442,
448, 361 U.S.App.D.C. 6 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that "
[a]s a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with
an examination of our jurisdiction" ). " A
complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it
'is patently insubstantial,' presenting no federal
question suitable for decision." Tooley v.
Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009, 388 U.S.App.D.C. 327
(D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d
328, 330, 309 U.S.App.D.C. 51 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Dismissal on
jurisdictional grounds is also warranted when the complaint
" recit[es] bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of
supporting facts, or postulat[es] events and circumstances of
a wholly fanciful kind." Crisafi v. Holland,
655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08, 211 U.S.App.D.C. 75 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Moreover, " federal courts are without power to
entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they
are 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely
devoid of merit.'" Hagans v. Lavine, 415
U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974)
(quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193
U.S. 561, 579, 24 S.Ct. 553, 48 L.Ed. 795 (1904)).
alleges that lead defendant " Resident Agency
Martinsburg . . . is a federal agent also known as . . .
Agents Martinez, Federal Agent in Martinsburg, WV."
Compl., ECF No. 1-1, p. 13. Plaintiff describes those
defendants as a " gang [of] Agents," operating out
of Berkeley County, West Virginia, and engaging in "
unlawful criminal arrest[s]" that have resulted in
" wrongful and illegal criminal convictions in and out
of [the] state of West Virginia," id., and
perhaps in the District of Columbia. See
id. at 13-15. Plaintiff alleges that defendants
Martinez and Resident Agency " intented [sic] to
bringing the murder upon [him]" and are "
stalking" him " from New York, boroughs to
Pennsylvania State Allegheny County, Pittsburg . . . ."
Id. at 15. He further accuses those defendants of
malicious prosecution. Id. at 16. In addition,
plaintiff accuses unidentified defendants of kidnapping his
daughter from " another" kidnapper. Id. at
18. In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks to hold the
District liable " for its failure to properly supervise
the defendants Resident Agency & federal Agent
Martinez." Am. Compl. ¶ 7.
largely incoherent allegations comprising the complaint and
subsequent pleadings warrant dismissal of this action under
Rule 12(b)(1). See Tooley, 586 F.3d at
1010, citing with approval Curran v. Holder, 626
F.Supp.2d 30, 33-34 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing case as
patently insubstantial where plaintiff allegedly was "
subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment
deriving from uncertain origins" ); see also
Walsh v. Hagee, 900 F.Supp.2d 51, 58-59 (D.D.C.
2012), aff'd, No. 12-5367, 2013 WL 1729762 (D.C.
Cir. Apr. 10, 2013) (describing claims of a " conspiracy
span[ning] a number of states and over 20 years,"
involving an " 'ultra secret' government agency
. . . harassment, and numerous murder attempts" as the
" sort of bizarre conspiracy theory" warranting
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)); Jordan v. Quander,
882 F.Supp.2d 88, 96 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing examples of
frivolous claims dismissed on jurisdictional grounds)
(citations omitted). In dismissing plaintiff's prior
complaint against defendant " Resident Agency," the
Western District of Pennsylvania observed that the
allegations (some of which are similar to those pled here)
" thoroughly demonstrate Plaintiff's fantastical
delusions. It is clear . . . that Mr. Juste's factual
scenarios are not rooted in reality, and therefore are
baseless." Juste v. Resident Agency, No. Civ.
A. 15-140, 2015 WL 507493, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2015).
That court concluded that " [t]he facts 'rise to the
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,'
rendering Plaintiff's claim frivolous." Id.
(quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112
S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992)). The instant complaint
fares no better. Moreover, the claims against the District of
Columbia defendants cannot survive because they are based on
essentially the same unfounded assertions underlying the
claims against the federal defendants, and on the meritless
premise that the District supervised the federal actors.
Hence, the complaint will be dismissed with