Stedman v. Fed. Commc'ns Commision

1

RAYMOND STEDMAN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-3191 (BAH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

May 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Raymond Stedman initiated the instant complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against defendant Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), which removed the action to this Court before filing the pending motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Def.'s Mot to Dismiss, ECF No. 4.^[1] For the reasons discussed below defendant's motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that, over a 12- to 14-year period, his “home and property [have] been commandeered or overrun by the government and other media entities.” Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1-1.^[2] He states that he “was the focal point of an ‘open forum' (spygate Obamagate) cyber riots and attacks, has direct contact with world leaders (Kim Jun Un [sic], Vlad Putin, Queen Elizabeth, the prince of Arabia), terrorist organizations, and cults,” and has had his “intellectual property . . . taken at will from the privacy of [his] own home.” Id. Over this time period, plaintiff alleges, his “privacy and civil rights were violated beyond belief.” Id. According to plaintiff, “bombers or army transport planes fly[] directly over [his] house,” id. at 3, and on one occasion an “attack chopper with a red light was 75 feet over [his] driveway,” id. at 3-4.

“Besides the invasion of privacy, harassment, criminal negligence, wreck less [sic] endangerment, and obstruction of justice,” plaintiff allegedly suffers “injury to [his] brain and body caused by overwhelming signal, riots and ritual like attacks by media and government entities as well as a victimized public and military and intelligence agencies.” Id. at 4.

Plaintiff appears to blame defendant for the physical and psychological harm he suffers, citing the agency's responsibility “for regulating Broadcast networks, Radios, and the internet in it's [sic] entirety.” Pl.'s Opp'n at 3, ECF No. 7; see Supp. Opp'n at 3, ECF No. 8. He describes a “network of telepathy and pirated signal” and alleges “[e]very network had they're [sic] own signal malfunction, circle, and effects. Aimed directly at us.” Pl.'s Opp'n at 3. “The anxieties [plaintiff has] developed, the hacking of [his] cyber identity, complications to [his] life and actual physical harm are unforgiveable,” plaintiff alleges. Errata at 3, ECF No. 9. To compensate for his injuries, plaintiff demands $45 million. Compl. at 1.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that: (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See generally Def.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.'s Mem.”) at 8-12, ECF No. 4. Defendant is correct.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

“Article III of the Constitution prescribes that ‘[f]ederal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction' and ‘ha[ve] the power to decide only those cases over which Congress grants jurisdiction.'” Bronner ex rel. Am. Stud. Ass'n v. Duggan, 962 F.3d 596, 602 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (alterations in original) (quoting Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315, 317 (D.C. Cir. 2012)); see also Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,' possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'” (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994))). Absent subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, the court must dismiss it. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006) (citing Kontrickv. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim at issue. Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court must determine jurisdictional questions by accepting as true all uncontroverted material factual allegations contained in the complaint and “‘constru[ing] the complaint liberally, granting plaintiff[s] the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'” Hemp Indus. Ass'n v. DEA, 36 F.4th 278, 281 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (second alteration in original) (quoting Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011)).

B. Rules 8 and 12(b)(6)

A plaintiff need only provide a “short and plain statement of [his] claim showing that [he is] entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), that “give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ideally, “[e]ach allegation [of a complaint is] simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). At the same time, to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” VoteVets Action Fund v. McDonough, 992 F.3d 1097, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); see also Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 757-58 (2014). A facially plausible claim pleads facts that are not ‘“merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” but that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); see Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“Plausibility requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully[.]”).

In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the whole complaint must be considered, with all factual allegations accepted as true, “even if doubtful in fact.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Marshall's Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Court cannot, however, “assume the truth of legal conclusions, nor [does it] ‘accept inferences that are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.'” Arpaio, 797 F.3d at 19 (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 732 (D.C. Cir. 2007)); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (stating that conclusory allegations are “not entitled to be assumed true”).

In applying these standards to pleadings filed by pro se litigants, the court must consider the complaint “in light of all filings, including filings responsive to a motion to dismiss.” Johnson v. District of Columbia, 927 F.3d 539, 541 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition, a pro se complaint must “‘be liberally construed' and ‘held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Bowman v. Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Nonetheless, a pro se plaintiff is not excused from complying with applicable procedural rules and “must plead ‘factual matter' that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct.'” Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678); see also Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588, 595 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's lawsuit must be dismissed on multiple grounds, whether plaintiff's claims are broadly construed as torts or violations of his civil rights, as explained further below.

A. Sovereign Immunity Bars Plaintiff's Claims

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941) (citations omitted); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent, and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”). “A waiver of sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally expressed,'” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969)), and absent an express waiver, “sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit,” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).

1. Tort Claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Insofar as plaintiff's claims sound in tort, defendant argues Def.'s Mem. at 9-10, ECF No. 4, they may proceed only under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80, which permits a civil suit for “personal injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).^[3] The FTCA waives sovereign immunity “‘under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.'” Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. United States, 569 F.3d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)). Thus, the FTCA renders the United States subject to suit for certain - but not all -tort claims. See, e.g., Richards v. United States, ...