Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Background

Ashish S. Pandya, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), alleging that the SEC violated his due process rights. His amended complaint sought $60 million for pain and suffering, reputational damage, and emotional distress. The opinion states that he brought the action under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal civil-rights statute.

Pandya alleged, among other things, that government officials or people he associated with the SEC used false documents, interfered with his finances, hacked his devices, used energy weapons against his family, threatened his life, and tried to force him and his family into bankruptcy. The SEC moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process, Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Pandya opposed the motion and later moved for summary judgment.

Reasons for the ruling

Insufficient service. The court held that Pandya had not properly served the SEC. For service on a federal agency, Rule 4 requires service on the agency, the United States Attorney for the district, and the Attorney General of the United States. Pandya’s proof of service showed service only on an SEC administrative officer. The court therefore granted the SEC’s motion under Rule 12(b)(5).

Sovereign immunity. The court also held that, even if service had been proper, Pandya had not shown that the SEC’s sovereign immunity had been waived. Pandya relied on a bankruptcy statute, but the court explained that the statute applies to certain claims in bankruptcy cases, and this was not a bankruptcy case.

To the extent Pandya relied on the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court held that he had not followed that law’s administrative-claim requirements. Pandya had submitted a claim to the Department of Justice, but the agency returned it as invalid because it lacked a specific dollar amount and did not identify the federal agency allegedly responsible. The court concluded that this response was not a final denial and that Pandya had not alleged submitting a revised or otherwise properly presented claim. The court therefore granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).

Failure to state a claim. The court construed the amended complaint as seeking money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than non-money relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. It held that the complaint did not provide enough factual information to show where the alleged acts occurred, which state’s tort law would apply, or how the SEC caused the alleged injuries. The court also found insufficient factual support for the assertions that the people involved were SEC employees or that the alleged hacking, threats, financial activity, and other conduct were connected to the SEC. The court therefore held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted the SEC’s request to deny further amendment. It concluded that amendment would be futile because the SEC was immune from suit, and Pandya had already received an opportunity to amend after being informed of the sovereign-immunity problem. The court granted the SEC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend, denied Pandya’s motion for summary judgment as moot, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case.