Tamayo v. FBI

Background

Carlos Tamayo Junior appeared without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants violated his right to “privacy.” He stated that, while he was at home with his family on December 11, 2024, someone began speaking through his television and later did the same through his phone. He said the speakers taunted him by asking, “What are you going to do about it?” He sought $60,000 “for educational purposes.”

Screening standard

Because Tamayo was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise cannot proceed. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Sovereign immunity and jurisdiction

The court held that sovereign immunity barred Tamayo’s claims against the FBI and CIA. Sovereign immunity generally protects the federal government and its agencies from lawsuits unless the government has waived that protection. The court found that Tamayo alleged nothing showing a waiver applicable to these claims. It therefore dismissed the claims under sovereign immunity and, consequently, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Frivolousness

The court also dismissed the claims as frivolous. It explained that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible. The court found that Tamayo provided no plausible factual support for his allegation that the FBI and CIA were speaking to and taunting him through his television and phone.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied leave to amend. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct defects, the court concluded that Tamayo’s complaint was frivolous and that its defects could not be cured by amendment. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.