Guy v. US Department of Justice

Background

Kenneth Carl Guy represented himself and was proceeding without paying the filing fee. He sued the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that his former employer, Newsmax Media, obtained his personal information from a local sheriff’s office. Guy alleged that the information came from the Criminal Justice Information Systems, which he said is maintained by the Department of Justice, and that the disclosure led to the loss of his job.

Guy styled his claim as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a constitutional damages theory known as a Bivens claim, and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He did not seek money damages. Instead, he requested a declaration intended to establish finality concerning claims connected to the events that led to his termination.

Screening standard

Because Guy was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing service on the defendant. The court applied the standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint had to include enough factual matter to make a legally valid claim plausible. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but the plaintiff still must provide enough facts to show a possible entitlement to relief.

Reasons the complaint was deficient

The court identified several deficiencies:

1. No alleged federal actor. Guy alleged that someone at a local sheriff’s office gave information to Newsmax, but he did not allege wrongful conduct by a federal employee. The court explained that a Bivens claim can address constitutional violations by individual federal officials, while constitutional claims against state actors generally cannot be brought under Bivens.

2. Improper defendant for a Bivens claim. The Department of Justice is a federal agency. The court held that a Bivens remedy is available only against individual federal officials in their individual capacities, not against the United States or a federal agency such as the Department of Justice.

3. Requested relief. The court explained that Bivens provides money damages for injuries caused by an individual federal official. Because Guy sought only declaratory or other nonmonetary relief, the court said a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over such a Bivens suit.

4. Possible time bar. The alleged conduct occurred in 2014. The court said that any claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides a limited remedy for certain torts by federal employees, was not plausibly available given the timing. The court also said that a Bivens claim was likely barred by the applicable two-year limitations period, assuming the injury occurred in California.

5. Venue and personal jurisdiction. Guy did not plausibly establish that this district was the proper place for the case or that the court had personal jurisdiction over the relevant defendant. The court noted that many allegations concerned events in Florida and that Guy’s present residence in this district did not, by itself, establish jurisdiction over a defendant connected to events elsewhere.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler screened the complaint and found that Guy had not plausibly pleaded a claim. The court gave him an opportunity to correct the deficiencies by filing an amended complaint by May 18, 2021. It also said he could instead file a one-page dismissal if the order gave him the finality he sought. If he did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal. The order did not direct service of the original complaint.