Zeiny v. United States of America

Background

Al Zeiny sued the United States of America and the Central Intelligence Agency, alleging that after he complained to Congressman Michael Honda in July 2010 about alleged misconduct by CIA agents and operatives, he became the target of ongoing threats and harassment. He alleged that defendants threatened him, helped cause his employer to terminate him, interfered with later employment, tried to poison him, and tampered with his medications. He claimed that these events harmed his physical and mental health and led to hospitalizations.

He asserted a claim for infliction of emotional distress and requested an injunction to prevent future retaliation and revenge. He also identified seventeen individuals whom he believed were responsible. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Jurisdictional challenge

The defendants argued that the complaint involved vague government conspiracies that were too insubstantial to invoke federal jurisdiction. The court denied that motion. Although the court found the action unlikely to have merit, it concluded at this early stage that the allegations were not all so fantastic or obviously frivolous that the case could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that Al Zeiny identified individuals and some dates, which suggested that at least some allegations might refer to identifiable events.

Failure to state a claim

The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It explained that, for a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is the proper defendant, not the CIA. More broadly, the complaint did not plausibly connect the alleged threats, poisoning, medication tampering, and other conduct to the seventeen individuals or to the defendants. The court found Al Zeiny’s assertions that the CIA was involved conclusory and speculative. It also declined to consider new factual connections raised only in his opposition brief because a party may not amend a complaint through briefing.

The court further ruled that an injunction is a remedy rather than an independent cause of action. It found that Al Zeiny had not established a basis for applying the Administrative Procedure Act to this case.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it allowed Al Zeiny to file an amended complaint by February 24, 2020. The order stated that failure to meet that deadline could result in dismissal of the action in its entirety without further leave to amend, and that an amended complaint would be dismissed if it did not correct the identified deficiencies.