Hart v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

Background

Brandon Hart filed this action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several current and former federal officials. The opinion states that Hart had previously brought two related actions raising nearly identical claims. In the first related action, a federal court dismissed his claims for failure to complete required administrative steps and failure to state a claim. In the second, the Southern District of New York dismissed the case because Hart had not properly served the defendants.

In this action, Hart filed a complaint exceeding 200 pages. He then filed a 392-page submission titled “Addendum to Complaint & Motion to Compel, Motion for a Hearing and Sworn Affidavit,” along with a filing titled “Motion for Protective Order.” The court treated the first filing as a motion for permission to amend the complaint and the second as a motion for an expedited hearing. Hart’s filings also sought to add claims against Jonathan M. Warren, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of North Carolina, compel answers to questions directed to the Department of Justice, and obtain other relief. No defendant had appeared.

Rule 8 and Amendment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement explaining the claims and the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The court found that Hart’s complaint did not meet this requirement because it combined material from earlier lawsuits with newly written allegations, contained long blocks of text, included unrelated information about his personal life, and made it difficult to identify the specific claims and events at issue.

The court found that the motion to amend had the same problem and also combined requests that should have been presented separately. Although courts generally give people representing themselves some flexibility in drafting their pleadings, the court explained that self-represented parties still must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted Hart leave to file another proposed amended complaint, but required that it be a single filing containing all facts supporting his claims and complying with Rule 8. The court instructed him to focus on what happened, who he claims was responsible, why he believes those people were responsible, and how he was affected. It also stated that Hart could attach exhibits but should not expect the court or defendants to use those exhibits to create claims for him.

Service of Process

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. Because Hart’s deadline was approaching and he would need additional time if he filed an acceptable amended complaint, the court stated that it would assess the new proposed complaint and extend the service deadline if the complaint complied with Rule 8.

Because Hart seeks to sue federal officials, the court explained that service must also comply with Rule 4(i). That rule requires delivery of the summons and complaint to the United States attorney for the relevant district, or mailing them by registered or certified mail to the appropriate civil-process clerk and the Attorney General of the United States.

Discovery and Expedited Hearing

The court denied Hart’s request to compel defendants to answer discovery requests and his request for a conference concerning those requests. The court ruled that these requests were premature because no defendant had appeared, defendants had not yet been served, and the required discovery conference had not occurred.

Disposition

Hart must file a single proposed amended complaint by May 23, 2025. If the court accepts it, that pleading will replace the original complaint, defendants will respond only to the claims in the amended complaint, and the court will set an extended service deadline. If Hart does not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond, Magistrate Judge Cave stated that she will recommend that Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and/or failure to state a claim. The order itself did not dismiss the action. It granted leave to file a proposed amended complaint and denied the other requests, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the two motions.