Norman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Garried Farrell Norman, who was representing himself, filed a form complaint against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Bar of California, the Alameda County Bar Association, the East Bay Community Law Center, attorney John Burris, and the Asian Law Alliance. He alleged that the FBI interfered with his ability to obtain a lawyer and that other defendants failed to provide legal representation. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Norman’s complaint referred to a list of alleged legal violations and a 239-paragraph list of accusations. The court treated documents attached to his application to proceed without paying the filing fee as part of the complaint. The documents included allegations about alleged FBI conduct involving Norman, his family, his employment, his businesses, and other events. Norman asked the court to require the FBI to stop interfering with his legal rights and sought help obtaining a lawyer.

The court also described several earlier related proceedings. In one earlier proceeding, Norman’s claims against the State Bar of California, the Alameda County Bar Association, the East Bay Community Law Center, and John Burris were dismissed with prejudice after the court gave him an opportunity to amend. Another related case involving some of those defendants was still pending.

Legal standards

Because Norman had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally viable claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court also applied the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

The court noted that it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally, but that conclusory statements and fanciful factual allegations do not satisfy the pleading requirement. It also noted that a self-represented plaintiff generally must be given an opportunity to amend after the court identifies the complaint’s deficiencies.

Analysis

The court first concluded that Norman’s claims against the State Bar of California, the Alameda County Bar Association, the East Bay Community Law Center, and John Burris repeated claims that had already been dismissed with prejudice. It held that those claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which generally prevents a party from bringing the same cause of action against the same parties after a prior final judgment.

The court then considered Norman’s allegations against all named defendants. It explained that Section 1983 provides a way to enforce rights created elsewhere; it does not itself create a substantive right. The court found that Norman had not alleged facts plausibly showing that he was involved in a civil case in which he faced imprisonment or the loss of another equally important right. It therefore concluded that he failed to state a Section 1983 claim based on a Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel against any named defendant.

The court also found no plausible facts suggesting that any defendant participated in a conspiracy to deprive Norman of civil rights under Section 1985. Separately, the court ruled that the hundreds of alleged violations and accusations in the attachments were too vague and conclusory to state a plausible claim. It further stated that many allegations appeared fanciful and therefore frivolous under Section 1915.

Disposition

The court concluded that Norman had failed to state any viable claim, but it did not enter a dismissal in this order. Instead, it issued an order to show cause requiring Norman to file, by June 13, 2022, either a response explaining why his claims were sufficiently pleaded or an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and could not incorporate the original allegations by reference. It warned that failure to respond would result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed.