Watkins v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER sustaining 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; sustaining 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 12/22/14. cc: Counsel, Pro se plaintiff(TLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00585-JGH
GENE DESHAWN M. WATKINS
PLAINTIFF
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The United States of America has moved to dismiss the case against it. Plaintiff has not
filed a response. The Court concludes that the lawsuit must be dismissed.
I.
Plaintiff, Gene DeShawn M. Watkins, filed a hand-written pro se complaint against the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Jefferson County,
Kentucky, on July 23, 2014. Defendant timely removed the case to this Court. Plaintiff
alleges that he was taken hostage by a CIA agent that he has seen on television; that the police
have been watching him for over a decade and have bugged his house; that his house is
surrounded by “stake out” houses; that agents are leaving the stake out houses with their guns
and breaking into his house while he sleeps; and that agents are giving him death threats.
Plaintiff alleges that this amounts to a violation of his civil liberties, racial discrimination, and
deadly intent.
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he is in possession of “federal camera’s [sic] that see
threw [sic] clothes and walls”, which he “got from my ceilin [sic] fan they light sockets”; states
that this is the reason his life is in danger; and alleges that he has been riding around with these
cameras watching agents, who are having sex with each other in the stake out houses. He alleges
that this is conspiracy to commit murder and unbecoming of an officer. He also alleges that the
agents are violating the Fourth Amendment by using such cameras. He further alleges that he
has watched while agents allegedly exploit children, “having sex w/ lil girls”, and states that he
has this on surveillance tape. He alleges that the agents are putting little girls in a sex slave ring.
He also alleges that the agents are trying to kill him.
These factual allegations are almost identical to those raised by the very same
Plaintiff in Watkins v. FBI, 3:12-cv-00130-M, which this Court dismissed on June 15,
2012.
II.
Plaintiff appears to assert a constitutional claim, based on his allegations of racial
profiling, against the FBI. That claim must fail, because the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly
declined an invitation to extend Bivens liability to permit suit against a federal agency. F.D.I.C.
v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994); see also Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp., 709 F.3d 584, 587-88 (6th Cir. 2013). In the Meyer opinion, the Court
emphasized that, “the purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer,” not the agency. Id. at 485. The
Court explained that, if given the choice, plaintiffs would likely sue a federal agency instead of
an individual who could assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. This scheme would
provide less incentive for aggrieved parties to bring damage claims against individuals, thus
losing the deterrent effect of the Bivens remedy. Id. Accordingly, to allow a Bivens claim
against federal agencies “would mean the evisceration of the Bivens remedy, rather than its
extension.” Id.; see also Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 69-70 (2001).
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s constitutional claim against the FBI fails.
2
III.
It is well-settled law that “the 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 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water
Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)). The Sixth Circuit has stated that dismissal under
12(b)(1) is appropriate when the complaint is frivolous or patently insubstantial, presenting no
deferral question suitable for decision. White v. Michigan Center for Forensic Psychiatry, 66
Fed. Appx. 626, 627 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-27 (1989));
accord Nunn v. Payne, No. 4:07CV-P126-M, 2008 WL 4146662, *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2008).
Patently insubstantial complaints are not merely doubtful or questionable, but rather are
“essentially fictitious,” such as “bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government
manipulations of [one’s] will or mind,” and “any sort of supernatural intervention.” Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 325-27. A district court properly dismisses a case where it lacks “any arguable basis in
law or in fact.” White, 66 Fed. Appx. at 627.
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fits squarely within the “essentially fictitious” pleadings
standard. Plaintiff explains within the complaint that federal agents have moved into his
neighbors’ houses and “are having sex” while Plaintiff was under surveillance. He further
suggests that federal agents are illegally using “camera’s [sic] that see threw [sic] clothes and
walls”, which he “got from my ceilin [sic] fan they light sockets.” These allegations are so
wildly bizarre as to be unbelievable without some corroboration. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim
fails to provide any explanation regarding what has led him to believe that he is under
surveillance, why he thinks the FBI is racially profiling him, or even what race he is. Further,
3
Plaintiff provides no statement indicating any possible basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Even
given the favorable inferences to
which Plaintiff is entitled with regard to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, it remains Plaintiff's
burden to prove subject matter jurisdiction. GTE North, Inc., 209 F.3d at 916. Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over these claims.
IV.
Although it is unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks, if he is seeking monetary damages
against the FBI for a tort, the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction for this Court
would be the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). In order to file a claim
under the FTCA, Plaintiff would have had to first file an administrative claim with the FBI. 18
U.S.C. § 2712. However, the waiver of sovereign immunity by the FTCA is unavailable for
Plaintiff’s tort claims against the FBI, because he has sent no administrative claim to the FBI, or
even to allege he has done so. Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate subject matter
jurisdiction, and accordingly, any tort claim against the FBI must be dismissed.
V.
Plaintiff does not expressly state any law upon which his claim relies. But if Plaintiff
intends to bring his racial profiling claim against the FBI pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution, the claim fails, because such claims may be brought only
against state actors. Because the FBI is a federal actor and not a state actor, Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim against the FBI. The Fourteenth Amendment is inapplicable to claims against
the FBI. See District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 423-24 (1973). Moreover, Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment claims against the FBI are barred because the United States has not
4
waived sovereign immunity for such a claim, and therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over it.
See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is SUSTAINED and the
complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final order.
December 22, 2014
cc:
Gene Deshawn M. Watkins, Pro Se
Counsel of Record
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?