Grant II v. Carns

Background

William Lee Grant II sued Michael Patrick Chamberlain Carns and other government officials. Grant alleged, among other things, that Carns and others agreed to detain him unlawfully, detained him in Illinois under threat of military force, directed health care providers to harm him, intimidated him to stab someone, and forced him to act as a homosexual for more than seven years. He asserted constitutional, statutory, and tort claims, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and sought $99,000,000,000,000.00.

Grant originally filed the action in Monterey County Superior Court. The Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California certified under the Westfall Act that Carns was acting within the scope of his federal employment when the alleged events occurred. Based on that certification, Carns removed the case to federal court.

Westfall Act certification

The Westfall Act provides federal employees immunity from common-law tort claims arising from conduct within the scope of their official duties. When the required certification is made, the United States is substituted as the defendant unless the court determines that the employee acted outside the scope of employment.

Grant moved to strike the certification. The court held that he had not presented sufficient evidence to disprove the certification by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also found that the written materials did not reveal a material factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing. It therefore denied Grant’s motion to strike the Westfall Act certification.

Because the court had not determined that Carns acted outside the scope of his employment, it substituted the United States for Michael Patrick Chamberlain Carns as the defendant and ordered the case caption amended.

Motion to dismiss

The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court explained that federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims that are essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, or obviously without merit.

The court characterized Grant’s allegations as a decades-long government conspiracy involving his detention and manipulation. It found the allegations inherently implausible and concluded that they were the type of claims subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the court did not address the defendant’s other arguments, including the Federal Tort Claims Act arguments and the arguments concerning Grant’s federal statutory claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court concluded that more detailed allegations about the alleged conduct would not remedy the jurisdictional problems. It therefore found that amendment would be futile and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

In the conclusion, Judge Susan Van Keulen stated that Grant’s motion to strike the Westfall Act certification was denied and the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to close the file.