Lindblad v. Department of Defense

Background

Robert M. Lindblad sued the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and Vice President Kamala Harris. He represented himself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. He alleged that the defendants violated his trade secrets concerning “a new dimension of thinking” and other described designs, and that unidentified Chinese intelligence and collaborators were conspiring against him.

Lindblad invoked Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the Beijing Treaty. He sought $3 trillion in compensatory and punitive damages. The opinion states that he admitted it was unclear what had been used.

Screening standard

Because Lindblad was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): the complaint had to provide enough factual information to make a plausible claim and a short, clear statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court also noted that it must read a self-represented person's complaint liberally. But it could not assume facts that Lindblad had not alleged or accept only conclusory statements.

Application and ruling

The court found that Lindblad claimed misappropriation of his ideas but did not adequately describe what the ideas were or identify who took them. It concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement of the claim and that Lindblad had not plausibly pleaded a federal claim.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It directed that any amended complaint at minimum identify what was taken and who took it. Lindblad could file an amended complaint by September 1, 2021. The order stated that if he did not do so, the court would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal. It also stated that Lindblad could voluntarily dismiss the case by filing a one-page notice, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice and allow him to pursue his claims later.