Pine v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Mark Pine proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), invoking federal-question jurisdiction, and sought $150,000 in damages. Pine alleged that multiple FBI officers in different states were harassing him and running scams. He described unsuccessful efforts to contact the FBI and also referred to interactions with New York City law enforcement.

Screening standard

Because Pine was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a qualifying complaint or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally viable claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also said it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the complaint.

Claims against the FBI

The court held that sovereign immunity barred Pine’s claims against the FBI. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived.

The court also addressed the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives sovereign immunity for certain damages claims based on tortious conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. An FTCA claim must be brought against the United States, not the FBI, and the claimant must first submit an administrative claim for damages and receive a final written determination, or satisfy the statute’s applicable timing requirements. Pine did not allege facts showing that he had filed an administrative claim with a federal government entity. The court therefore dismissed his damages claims concerning the alleged FBI conduct under the sovereign-immunity provision of the screening statute and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims concerning New York City law enforcement

The court noted that Pine did not name an individual employed by the New York City Police Department as a defendant. He also did not describe specific interactions with an officer or provide dates for those interactions. The court stated that, if Pine seeks to bring a claim against an NYPD officer, he may provide relevant facts in an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(iii) on sovereign-immunity grounds and, consequently, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court granted Pine 30 days to file an amended complaint detailing his claims against the United States and/or an NYPD officer. If he did not amend within that period, the court stated that the clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.