Joseph v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) et al

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing amended complaint without prejudice. Signed by Judge Ronald M Whyte on 4/23/2014. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

RHAWN JOSEPH, Ph. D.,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 14-CV-00385

v.

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION (NASA), and
CHARLES F. BOLDEN, Chief Administrator

[Re Docket No. 8]

Respondents.

18
19

On January 27, 2014 petitioner Rhawn Joseph, Ph. D. (“Joseph”) filed a petition for writ of

20

mandamus to compel the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) to “closely

21

photograph and thoroughly scientifically examine and investigate a putative biological organism”

22

on the planet Mars identified by Joseph. Dkt. No. 1 (Petition), ¶ 1. On March 6, 2014 the court

23

issued an Order to Show Cause why Joseph’s petition should be not dismissed for failure to state a

24

claim and lack of standing. In response, Joseph filed “Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint” seeking

25

damages and injunctive relief for various torts and constitutional violations. Dkt. No. 8. Because the

26

“Amended Complaint” fails to establish a cause of action, the court DISMISSES the complaint

27

without prejudice. However, because the facts alleged suggest that plaintiff could possibly allege a

28

First Amendment violation, the court gives plaintiff thirty days leave in which to amend.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-1-

I. BACKGROUND

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Joseph alleges seven causes of action: Libel, defamation, slander and trade libel (Count 1);
violation of freedom of speech (Count 2); violation of freedom of the press (Count 3); violation of
“first amendment of the constitution, religion” (Count 4); malice, oppression, fraud (Count 5);
misrepresentation, deceit, interference, negligence, wrongful acts, fraud, false claim, defamation
(Count 6); and personal and professional injury (Count 7).
These claims are based on Joseph’s allegation that NASA has conspired with the press and
various scientists to quash any discussion or investigation of the idea that life did not begin on
Earth. NASA, according to Joseph, is driven to maintain the Judeo-Christian religious dogma that
life began on Earth. Joseph believes that this conspiracy caused readership in his scientific journal,
the Journal of Cosmology, to plummet, harmed his publishing business, and violated his First
Amendment rights. Joseph also believes that NASA has doctored and hidden evidence that
extraterrestrial life exists. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21, 25, 64, 65, 71, 72, 122, 125.
II. ANALYSIS

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Joseph alleges violations of three federal statutes: the False Claims Act, the Federal Tort
Claims Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court addresses each statute in turn.
A. Federal Tort Claims Act
The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, includes express exemptions to liability,
including claims arising out of “libel, slander, misrepresentation, [or] deceit . . . .” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2680(h); see also Edmonds v. United States, 436 F. Supp. 2d 28, 35 (D.D.C. 2006) (dismissing
slander and libel claims against the government for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Joseph’s 1st,
5th, 6th, and 7th claims arise out of NASA’s alleged dissemination of false material about the
plaintiff and extraterrestrial life. The slander exception requires dismissal of all of these claims. Id.,
citing Johnson v. United States, 547 F.2d 688, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (“[T]he label which a plaintiff
applies to a pleading does not determine the nature of the cause of action which he states. And
surely a litigant cannot circumvent the [FTCA] by the simple expedient of drafting in terms of
negligence a complaint that in reality is a claim as to which the United States remains immunized.”)

28
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-2-

1

and Kugel v. United States, 947 F.2d 1504 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (dismissing a variety of claims arising

2

in defamation).
B. False Claims Act

4

The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, also fails as a basis for jurisdiction. The

5

False Claims Act permits “suits by private parties on behalf of the United States against anyone

6

submitting a false claim to the government.” United States ex rel. Branch Consultants v. Allstate

7

Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir. 2009). Joseph has not alleged that anyone submitted false

8

claims to the government. Instead, he alleges the opposite—that NASA has submitted false “claims”

9

to the public by altering evidence showing the existence of extraterrestrial life. This sounds in

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

misrepresentation, which is barred under the exemptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act as just

11

explained.

12
13
14

C. 42 U.S.C. §1983
Finally, Joseph alleges violation of various First Amendment rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
his 2nd (speech), 3rd (press), and 4th (religion) claims. However, § 1983 is not available to Joseph

15
as the defendants are a federal employer and employee. Joseph would have to assert a claim under
16
17

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Supreme Court has questioned

18

whether this can be done. See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983) (holding against applying the

19

Bivens model to claims of First Amendment violations by federal employers). Joseph may

20

nevertheless be able to state a First Amendment chilling claim. See Martin v. Naval Criminal

21
22

Investigative Service, 539 Fed. Appx. 830 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 675
F.3d 1213, 1223 (2012), amended, 711 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2013) and cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 677

23
24
25

(2013). Although Joseph’s ability to assert a viable claim is doubtful, the court will grant him leave
to attempt to do so. Joseph must allege, among other things, that employees of NASA took actions

26

that would have chilled or silenced a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment

27

activities. See Sloman v. Turlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1469 (9th Cir. 1994).

28
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-3-

1

Joseph’s theory is that by criticizing and dismissing his Journal, NASA caused readership to

2

plummet and drove authors away from publishing in his Journal. In its current form, the complaint

3

fails to allege sufficient facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

4

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Joseph has not alleged a specific statement made by one of the

5

named defendants. Instead, he alleges a general conspiracy by the defendants that caused some

6

specific statements to be made by “the media” or in press releases. See Amended Complaint at

7

¶¶ 21, 25, 64, 65, 71, 72, 122, 125. Joseph also has not alleged that NASA or specific individual

8

defendants were motived to chill or deter plaintiff’s speech. Instead, Joseph appears to allege that

9

NASA’s statements affected other authors and readers who were driven away from his journal.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Joseph’s complaint that NASA or specific defendants stated that his journal did not conduct

11

peer reviews when it actually did may have merit. Because Joseph may be able to state a claim for a

12

First Amendment violation, the court grants 30 days leave to amend. Joseph must serve his amended

13

pleadings on defendants.
III. ORDER

14
15
16

Accordingly, the current Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state claim. Joseph must file and serve his Second Amended Complaint by May 23, 2014.

17
18
19

Dated: April 23, 2014

_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-4-