Zeiny v. United States of America

Background

Al Zeiny proceeded without a lawyer and sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleged that, since 2010, members of the Central Intelligence Agency had engaged in ongoing harassment and other conduct, including tampering with his medications, food, and drinks; threatening torture; sabotaging his employment prospects; spying on him; interfering with his relationships; and accusing him of smuggling nuclear secrets to Iran. He claimed that this conduct caused mental and physical distress, paranoia, and a need for higher medication doses.

The case initially included the Central Intelligence Agency as a defendant, but the second amended complaint asserted one claim against the United States for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court had previously dismissed Al Zeiny’s complaint without prejudice because it was conclusory and speculative and did not plausibly connect the alleged conduct to the CIA or the United States. The court allowed him to amend.

Arguments and analysis

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It argued that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, barred the action because Al Zeiny had made similar allegations in earlier cases. Al Zeiny responded that he was not relitigating those cases and was using overlapping facts to describe continuing conduct.

The court rejected the claim-preclusion argument. It explained that allegations based on events occurring months or years after the earlier case did not arise from the same group of underlying facts.

The court nevertheless found that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim. Al Zeiny identified seventeen people whom he said were CIA agents, but he did not explain why he believed they were affiliated with the CIA or how he knew they were responsible for the alleged conduct. The court found that his descriptions of being followed, hearing people mention his name, and witnessing supposedly bizarre acts amounted to speculation rather than facts plausibly connecting the CIA to his injuries. The court also found that an affidavit from Al Zeiny’s wife did not establish that the CIA was responsible or that she was affiliated with the agency.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that Al Zeiny’s allegations remained conclusory and speculative even when liberally construed, and that he had not provided the factual detail needed to give the United States notice of what it allegedly did wrong.

The court concluded that Al Zeiny had had ample opportunity to correct the identified deficiencies and determined that another amendment would not provide the necessary detail. It dismissed the action without leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.