Hussein v. Whitaker

Background

Gamada A. Hussein represented himself in this action against the Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, its director, and unidentified defendants. He alleged that government actors had harmed him through surveillance, poisoning, radiation, carcinogens, implanted microchips, torture, mind control, witchcraft, drugs, and software.

Hussein had previously brought a related action in the District of Minnesota based on substantially similar allegations. That earlier action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court later denied review. Hussein then filed this action, adding four counts to the first eleven counts, which the court found were essentially identical to claims in the earlier case.

Court’s analysis

A magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and also recommended restrictions on Hussein’s future filings. Hussein objected, and the district court reviewed his objections.

The court adopted the recommendation that Count XV be dismissed because the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act does not provide a private right of action. It also found no error in the recommendation concerning Hussein’s Freedom of Information Act claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, sovereign-immunity issues, and subject-matter jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed Counts VIII through XIV, along with the portions of Counts I and IV through V seeking money damages for constitutional violations against defendants in their official capacities, for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

For the remaining claims, the court applied the rule requiring a complaint to contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. It concluded that Hussein had not shown a plausible connection between the alleged harms and the defendants and had not alleged action by state actors for Counts III, IV, and VI. The court also concluded that refiling materially identical claims without curing the previously identified deficiencies was frivolous.

Rulings

The court overruled Hussein’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, denied Hussein’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as described in the order.

Counts VIII through XIV and the specified portions of Counts I and IV through V were dismissed without prejudice. All remaining counts were dismissed with prejudice.

The court also ordered that Hussein could not file anything—including new lawsuits, motions, or other papers in pending cases—in the District of Minnesota unless he was represented by counsel or obtained prior court approval.