Allums v. Department of Justice

Background

Dennis Bruce Allums proceeded without a lawyer and filed a second amended complaint against the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, John Does 1–99, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). He described the claims as civil-rights violations and sought relief under a Bivens theory, which can provide a damages remedy against certain federal officials for constitutional violations. His allegations included criminal conspiracy, defamation, invasion of privacy, and injuries including a herniated disk and torn ligaments.

The allegations concerned events beginning around 2002 or 2004 and continuing through the present. Allums alleged that he had thwarted a conspiracy involving a well-known celebrity and claimed writing credit for a formerly popular television show. He alleged that federal agents retaliated by defaming and discrediting him through interactions in the Bay Area, including on BART trains and in Berkeley. He also alleged that various individuals were federal agents involved in human trafficking and harassment, that his privacy had been invaded, and that federal defendants were protecting a dangerous man in Berkeley.

The court had previously dismissed Allums’s first amended complaint because of defects involving a then-named defendant, the City of Berkeley. Allums then filed the second amended complaint at issue here.

BART’s Motion to Dismiss

The court granted BART’s motion to dismiss. Although the second amended complaint did not list BART as a party, it included allegations about an interaction on a BART train. In opposing dismissal, Allums clarified that he was not asserting that claim against BART and instead intended it to describe a pattern of conduct by federal agents. Because the complaint contained no other allegations against BART, and Allums did not otherwise argue that BART belonged in the case, the court granted BART’s motion and dismissed BART from the matter.

Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

The court also granted the federal defendants’ motion. It explained that sovereign immunity generally protects the federal government and its agencies from suit unless the government has clearly agreed to be sued. The court treated the question of whether that immunity had been waived as a subject-matter-jurisdiction issue.

The court concluded that Allums could not use a Bivens action against the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigations because both are federal agencies. A Bivens action, as described by the court, may impose personal liability on a federal official for alleged constitutional violations, but it does not provide a claim against a federal agency. The court therefore held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint as to the federal agencies and dismissed the federal defendants from the action with prejudice.

As to the John Doe defendants, the court declined to allow discovery to identify them. It found that Allums had not provided enough factual information showing that any federal official acting under color of federal law participated in the alleged events. The court also found that discovery would not cure the other defects in the complaint.

The court further held that the second amended complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a complaint to provide a clear and adequate statement supporting a claim for relief. Although the second amended complaint was shorter than the previous complaint, the court found it still largely incomprehensible, confusing, and filled with irrelevant material. It concluded that the pleading did not state a recognizable claim against the appropriate defendants.

Disposition

The court granted BART’s and the federal defendants’ motions to dismiss. It stated that Allums had received three opportunities to file a complaint, but each complaint had the same basic defects and none satisfied Rule 8’s requirements. The court therefore held that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, dismissed the matter with prejudice, directed the clerk to close the case, and terminated Docket Numbers 41 and 42.