Seelig v. Central Intelligence Agency

Background

Christopher Seelig filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. He named the Central Intelligence Agency, US Army Intelligence and Security, the Alameda Police Department, and the FBI as defendants.

Seelig asserted claims under multiple federal criminal statutes, including statutes concerning conspiracy, health-care fraud, obstruction of criminal investigations, retaliation, racketeering activity, weapons of mass destruction, domestic terrorism, prisoner transfers, and drug offenses. He alleged that the defendants engaged in surveillance, harassment, hacking, poisoning, attempted murder, interference with employment, and other conduct. He requested $13 million in damages, an injunction barring stalking and harassment, and placement in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Permission to Proceed Without Filing Fees

The court found that Seelig’s submitted documents showed that he could not afford the filing fees. It therefore granted his application to proceed without paying those fees.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Seelig was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute requires dismissal before service if a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court applied the same general pleading standard used for a motion claiming that a complaint fails to state a claim.

The court concluded that Seelig could not pursue the asserted federal criminal statutes as private civil claims. It explained that private citizens cannot bring criminal charges in federal court and that those criminal provisions did not create a basis for civil liability for Seelig’s claims.

The court also found the complaint frivolous. It described frivolous claims as those lacking an arguable legal or factual basis and concluded that Seelig’s allegations fell beyond implausibility and toward the delusional. The court further found that the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not give the defendants fair notice of what Seelig was claiming against each of them.

Recommendation and Next Steps

The court recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. This was a report and recommendation rather than a final district-judge disposition of the complaint. Because not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the clerk was directed to reassign the case to a district judge.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party could file objections within 14 days after being served. The opinion stated that failing to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.