Havea v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Sosaia Havea filed a form complaint and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of claims filed by people proceeding without paying fees. The complaint named the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Sanjay Vermani, identified as the special agent in charge of the FBI’s San Francisco office.

Havea alleged that they submitted four tips to the FBI in 2025 about events that allegedly occurred in Mississippi in 2017 and San Francisco in 2018. According to the complaint, Havea wanted the FBI to investigate because a psychiatrist would not certify that their condition resulted from qualifying crimes without proof of qualifying incidents for a California victims-compensation application.

Claim and Analysis

Havea asserted federal-question jurisdiction and relied on 18 U.S.C. § 242. That statute makes it a federal crime for a person acting under governmental authority to willfully deprive someone of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The court held that § 242 is part of the federal criminal code and does not authorize a private citizen to bring a civil action. The court therefore stated that the claim failed and could not be cured because Havea lacked standing to assert it.

The court also applied the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The court noted that allegations by a person representing themself must be read liberally, but concluded that the complaint did not appear to plausibly state a claim.

Ruling and Next Steps

Judge Spero did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, the court ordered Havea to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Havea may either file an amended complaint addressing the identified problems or file a response explaining why the existing complaint is sufficient. The deadline is January 30, 2026, and the scheduled February 4, 2026 case-management conference was vacated.

The order states that if Havea does not respond by the deadline, the case will be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order also explains that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include all facts, claims, and defendants Havea wishes to pursue.