Rasheed v. United States Government Agent

Background

Tahee A. Rasheed is proceeding without a lawyer and was previously allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and found it deficient. Rasheed then filed a First Amended Complaint, but the court found that it remained deficient.

The First Amended Complaint names sixteen defendants, including federal agencies or employees, police departments, private businesses and banks, and individuals. Rasheed alleges violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also alleges illegal searches and seizures, loss or withholding of assets and money, removal from land, sex discrimination by the Postal Service under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and harm related to being moved to Treasury Island.

Reasons the amended complaint remained deficient

Federal defendants. Rasheed did not allege a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, which generally protects the United States and its agencies from suit. The court stated that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over stand-alone constitutional claims against the federal defendants and held that the claims against the “United States Government F.B.I,” “United States Treasury,” “Postal Service,” and “United States Employee” were subject to dismissal.

Private defendants. Rasheed alleged constitutional violations against a doctor, a hacker, Mobil Oil, Capital One Bank, Chase Bank, Navy Federal Credit Union Bank, and Bank of America. Because these are private parties, Rasheed needed to allege facts showing that their conduct was state action—conduct sufficiently connected to the government to be treated as governmental conduct. The court found that his conclusory statement that they acted under state law was not enough.

Municipal defendants. Rasheed named three police departments. Under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality can be liable for a civil-rights violation caused by its policy, custom, or practice. The court found that Rasheed did not allege that his injuries were caused by such policies, customs, or practices, so these claims did not state a municipal-liability claim.

Clarity of the pleading. The court found that allegations concerning Wilson Meany from the Lennar Corporation did not identify which law or right was violated. The court directed that any new complaint must identify the specific laws or rights involved, connect each defendant to specific conduct, explain the harm, and state the relief requested.

Potentially frivolous allegations. The court found that some allegations appeared frivolous, including Rasheed’s assertion that he was a shareholder and representative of Mobil Oil and could request $15 million in stock as an additional tax paid under protest. The court explained that a claim may be factually frivolous when its allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.

Improper joinder. The court found that the sixteen defendants were not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 because the alleged conduct appeared separate and did not arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of related events, or present common questions of law or fact. Any second amended complaint must satisfy those requirements and explain each defendant’s alleged liability.

Possible time bar. Rasheed’s allegations dated back to 1998. The court stated that claims may be dismissed based on the statute of limitations when the time bar is complete and obvious from the complaint, and it suspected that much of the amended complaint would be time-barred.

Title VII claim. Rasheed alleged that the Postal Service violated Title VII based on sex discrimination. The court found that he did not allege an employment relationship with the Postal Service and therefore failed to state a Title VII claim.

Order

The court found that the First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Because Rasheed was proceeding without a lawyer and the court could not conclude that the defects could not be cured, it ordered him to file a Second Amended Complaint by November 7, 2025. The order explained that the new complaint must replace the earlier complaint and include all facts, claims, and defendants that Rasheed wishes to pursue. If he failed to correct the deficiencies, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.