Hart v. Federal Bureau of Investigations
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-00781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hart v. FBI, Judge Cave denied Hart’s motion, sealed it, and ordered a compliant amended complaint by May 23, 2025.
Brandon Hart, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the other defendants, and a non-party whose personally identifying information appeared in Hart’s filing.
What happened
In Hart v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Brandon Hart had been told to submit one shorter proposed amended complaint addressing problems in his earlier filings. The court had set May 23, 2025, as the deadline.
Hart then filed a 47-page document titled “Second Request – Motion for Protective Order.” The court found that it attempted to add claims, did not follow the requirement for a clear and concise complaint, and included personal identifying information about Hart and another person. The court ordered the filing sealed to protect that information.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion for failing to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and directed Hart to file one proposed amended complaint by May 23. The court warned that it would recommend dismissal to Judge Katherine Polk Failla if Hart did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the earlier order, but this order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Hart v. Federal Bureau of Investigations · No. 1:25-cv-00781
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
The court had previously reviewed Brandon Hart’s filings and his efforts to bring related claims in state and federal courts. In an earlier order, the court identified problems with his filings and directed him to submit one proposed amended complaint by May 23, 2025. The court emphasized that a complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claims.
Hart’s underlying claim concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s alleged failure to intervene or investigate wrongdoing that he said he had experienced since 1997. The court said his later filing moved away from the factual narrative relevant to that claim.
Motion and Sealing
On April 23, 2025, Hart filed a 47-page document titled “Second Request – Motion for Protective Order.” The court concluded that the document attempted to add claims and did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement of the claims. The court also said the filing included personally identifying information about Hart and a non-party.
The court determined that protecting that information outweighed the public’s presumptive right to inspect materials filed on the docket. It directed the Clerk of Court to seal the filing, ECF No. 33, so that it would be visible only to selected parties and the court.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Hart’s motion for failure to comply with Rule 8, for the reasons stated in the earlier order. The court directed Hart to file one proposed amended complaint consistent with its instructions by May 23, 2025. If accepted, that amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and the defendants would respond only to the claims and allegations in it.
The order did not dismiss the action. It stated that if Hart failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the earlier order, Judge Cave would recommend that Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and/or failure to state a claim. The Clerk was also directed to close ECF Nos. 28, 29, and 33 and mail Hart a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.