Die Blaise v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Die Kouame Blaise. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-10419

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10419
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv-01124-CEM-TBS

DIE K. BLAISE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA),
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA),
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA),
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA),
RICHARD BURR, Chairman, United States Senate Intelligence Committee,
PAUL D. RYAN, Speaker of the House, United States House of Representatives,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 27, 2017)

Case: 17-10419

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pro se appellant, Die K. Blaise, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
eight-count amended civil rights complaint against five federal agencies, a U.S.
Senator, and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. In his amended
complaint, Blaise alleged that the “intelligence community” improperly used
electromagnetic frequency devices to conduct non-consensual experiments on U.S.
citizens and to harass, intimidate, and kill individuals who filed complaints. The
district court dismissed all of the allegations in his complaint under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In addition to arguing that dismissal of these claims was improper, he raises
several other claims for the first time on appeal.
Keeping in mind that pro se complaints are liberally construed, we apply the
same standard that governs dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir.
2008). Arguments raised for the first time on appeal that were not presented in the
district court are waived. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d
1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). Reviewing the dismissal de novo and taking the
allegations in the complaint as true, see Alba, 517 F.3d at 1252, we affirm the
district court.
2

Case: 17-10419

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the district court to dismiss a case filed by
a prisoner if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. The district court properly dismissed Blaise’s amended
complaint because Blaise failed to demonstrate any cognizable claim for relief as
to his original eight claims.
AFFIRMED.

3