Doe v. Obama

Filing 11

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 5 be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objection 4 to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation be, an d the same hereby is, OVERRULED and that the Court ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 4 ; and it is further ORDERED that the Complaint [I] be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii); and it is further ORDERED that the remaining motions [Doc. Nos. 3, 6, 9, & 10] be, and the same hereby are, DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 4/2/18. (gwalk, )c/s

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,

v.
BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1: 18-cv-104-AJT-MSN

)

_______________
Defendants.

)
)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
[Doc. No. 4], recommending that the Complaint [Doc. No. 1] ("Compl.") be dismissed for failure
to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In
response, Plaintiff John Doe filed an Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [Doc. No. 5]
and Objection to Report & Recommendation [Doc. No. 7], in which he argues that his proposed
Amended Complaint would cure the problems in the original Complaint identified by the
Magistrate Judge. 1 The Court has reviewed de novo the contents of the Plaintiffs Complaint and
proposed Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 5-1] ("Am. Compl."), and concludes that neither
adequately state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the original Complaint on the grounds
that it "does not contain sufficient factual allegations to permit the Court to determine whether
Plaintiff has a colorable claim." Report & Recommendation 1. To successfully state a claim, a
complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that
1

Also pending are (I) Motion for Leave to Proceed in Psuedonym [sic] [Doc. No. 3]; (2) Motion of Leave to
Request CM/ECF Access [Doc. No. 6]; (3) Motion for Leave to Service by Publication [Doc. No. 9]; (4) Motion for
Leave to Waive Notifications [Doc. No. 10]. Because the Court finds that the Complaint and proposed Amended
Complaint fail to state a claim, the Court will DENY these motions as moot.

is plausible on its face."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009).Plaintiff does not argue in
his Objection that the Magistrate Judge was wrong to conclude that the original Complaint failed
to state a claim, but only argues that he should be allowed to remedy the deficits identified in the
Report & Recommendation by amending his Complaint.The Court has nonetheless reviewed the
Complaint de novo and holds that the Magistrate Judge was correct to "find[] that the pleading is
too vague and conclusory to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and appears
otherwise frivolous." Report & Recommendation 2.
The proposed Amended Complaint, although more than twice as long as the original
Complaint, fails to rectify these deficits.For example, both complaints purport to allege a cause
of action for electronic surveillance in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1809.However, the allegations in
the proposed Amended Complaint, though voluminous, are the same sort of conclusory
allegations that plagued the original Complaint.The Amended Complaint alleges that "[t]he
Plaintiff is monitored 24/7/365 days a year, as the Plaintiffs personal and private information ...
is being shared inappropriately and illegally, including with the defendants, usually in live time,
without the Plaintiff being accused of a crime .... " Am. Compl.132. Similarly, Counts 22
through 43 of the Amended Complaint allege claims for intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress based on generalized assertions that the Defendants have surveilled and
verbally abused Plaintiff while following him.However, the Amended Complaint does not
contain any factual allegations that make plausible these claims of surveillance or verbal abuse.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [Doc. No. 5] be,

and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objection [Doc. No. 4] lo the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, OVERRULED and that the Court ADOPTS the
Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 4]; and it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint [Doc. No. I] be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I 915(e)(2)(ii); and it is further
ORDERED that the remaining motions [Doc. Nos. 3, 6, 9, & I OJ be, and the same hereby
are, DENIED as moot.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to mail a
copy to prose Plaintiff John Doe and to enter judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 58.
This is a final order for purposes of appeal. To appeal, Plaintiff must file a written
Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Cou1t within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. A
Notice of Appeal is a short statement stating a desire to appeal an order and identifying the date
of the order Plaintiff wishes to appeal. Failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal waives
Plaintiff's right to appeal this decision.

Alexandria, Virginia
April 2, 2018