Norman v. The White House

Background

Garred F. Norman filed a complaint naming 34 individuals and entities, including The White House and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He alleged that FBI agents drugged him, tried to entrap or frame him for murder, killed a man, sold crack cocaine, attempted to harm family members, gave him drugs, physically abused his daughter, and caused or participated in other assaults and harmful events. The complaint also included hundreds of accusations and questions, letters describing alleged FBI abuses, and a request that defendants intervene so he could obtain a lawyer.

Norman identified Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 as legal bases for his claims. Bivens permits certain lawsuits against federal officers in their individual capacities. Sections 1983 and 1985 provide civil-rights causes of action in circumstances covered by those statutes. The court had granted Norman permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The court also reviewed Norman’s earlier related cases in that district. It noted that he had previously made similar allegations and filed many of the same documents. The opinion stated that some earlier cases had been dismissed, one earlier case remained pending, and another had been dismissed with prejudice after Norman did not respond to an order to show cause.

Legal standard

Under the screening statute, a court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious or that fail to state a claim for relief. A complaint must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and must include enough factual matter to make the claim plausible, rather than relying on legal conclusions or conclusory statements. Because Norman filed without a lawyer’s assistance, the court stated that it would read his allegations liberally and generally must allow amendment unless the defects could not be corrected.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Norman’s complaint failed to state a claim. It found that the complaint did not provide plausible, specific facts showing that any named defendant violated Norman’s civil rights or conspired to do so. Although the complaint referred to actions by the FBI and “FBI Agents” generally, it did not describe the conduct of a specific, identifiable individual defendant. The complaint mentioned an agent called “Sonnyman the Sandwich man,” but that person was not named as a defendant.

The court further held that the FBI is not a “person” that can be sued under Sections 1983 and 1985. It explained that a Bivens claim may be brought against certain federal officers in their individual capacities, but federal agencies cannot be sued in a Bivens action. The court therefore found that Norman’s allegations were insufficient to state a claim and said that some allegations also appeared fanciful and therefore frivolous under the screening statute.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. It required any amended complaint to be filed by October 24, 2022. The order did not decide the truth of Norman’s factual allegations or reach the merits of whether the alleged conduct violated his rights.