Barrera v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Arturo Osiel Valencia Barrera sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation and two anonymous FBI agents. He alleged that people living at the McAllister Hotel were stalking, threatening, and harassing him. He also alleged that the San Francisco Police Department had a policy of ignoring his criminal reports and that the FBI refused to investigate his reports and was part of a criminal conspiracy against him. He sought unspecified damages.

Barrera attempted to bring a civil-rights damages claim under Bivens, an implied legal remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. He referred generally to equal-protection rights under the Constitution. He also requested judicial notice of the Fourteenth Amendment, sought an order requiring the FBI to investigate his allegations, and moved to disqualify the judge.

Fee waiver and complaint screening

The court granted Barrera's application to proceed without prepaying court fees because it found that he satisfied the financial eligibility requirement. The court explained that granting this status also requires screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Under that statute, the court must dismiss a fee-waived action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant.

The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim. It described the allegations that hotel residents were stalking, threatening, and harassing Barrera as conclusory because the complaint provided no factual basis. It also found that his allegations about being targeted for ten years by an unnamed domestic terrorist group and the FBI's involvement were fantastical and implausible.

The court further held that Barrera could not bring his Bivens claim against the FBI because the Supreme Court has not extended that remedy to federal agencies. The court also found that his vague assertion that his equal-protection rights were violated did not state a claim. The order did not dismiss the action at this stage. Instead, it required Barrera to file a first amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by August 29, 2024. If he failed to do so, the court said it would recommend dismissal.

Other motions

The court denied Barrera's request for judicial notice and his request for an injunction requiring the FBI to investigate. It said judicial notice of the Constitution was unnecessary because a party can simply cite the law, and it found that Barrera had not stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim supporting injunctive relief.

The court also denied Barrera's motion to disqualify Judge Donna M. Ryu under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Barrera argued that the judge had shown bias, including by denying a hearing on his earlier emergency motion and by not allowing earlier unidentified cases to proceed through statutory screening. The court found that these circumstances did not demonstrate bias and rejected his unsupported assertion that the judge had personal knowledge of the alleged conspiracy or was aiding the defendants.

Disposition

The court granted the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees, found that the complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), denied the request for judicial notice and injunction, and denied the motion to disqualify. It gave Barrera until August 29, 2024, to amend.