Hussein v. Office of Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency
- John Tunheim
- 0:19-cv-02058
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Gamada A. Hussein v. Office of Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency, Judge Tunheim dismissed Hussein’s complaint with prejudice and denied his motions as moot for failure to state a claim.
Gamada A. Hussein, who represented himself, and the Office of the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the agency’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, and the unknown John Does.
What happened
Gamada A. Hussein sued the Office of Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the agency’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, and unknown John Does. He alleged that government actors had harmed him for more than a decade through surveillance, torture, poisoning, mind control, and other conduct.
Hussein objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning his complaint, preliminary-injunction motion, and summary-judgment motion. The court declined to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but determined that the complaint did not plausibly connect any alleged harm to the defendants and repeated claims previously dismissed in related proceedings.
Judge Tunheim overruled Hussein’s objections, adopted the recommendation in part, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court denied Hussein’s motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment as moot.
The detailed version
- Hussein v. Office of Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency · No. 0:19-cv-02058
- John Tunheim
- Jan. 30, 2020
Background
Gamada A. Hussein brought the action against the Office of the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, and unknown John Does. Proceeding without a lawyer, Hussein alleged that government actors had harmed him for more than a decade through discriminatory harassment, psychological torture, drug and software attacks, surveillance, poisoning, attempted assassinations, mind control, and other conduct.
Hussein had also filed related cases in the District of Minnesota involving similar or identical allegations. In an earlier related proceeding, the court described his filings as frivolous and restricted his ability to file new lawsuits or other papers in the district unless he was represented by counsel or obtained prior court approval.
Hussein filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Kate Menendez recommended denying those motions and dismissing the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hussein objected.
Court’s Analysis
The district court reviewed the properly challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It declined to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because that ground requires a particularly strong showing and was unnecessary to resolve the case. The court also stated that 5 U.S.C. § 702 did not provide jurisdiction because the complaint did not appear to seek review of a final agency action.
Instead, the court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. The court concluded that Hussein offered no plausible connection between the alleged harms and the defendants. It also relied on the repeated filing of materially identical claims without an attempt to correct earlier defects, and characterized the allegations as speculative, conclusory, and not grounded in fact.
Because the complaint failed to state a claim, the court treated Hussein’s preliminary-injunction and summary-judgment motions as moot. The court therefore did not grant either requested form of relief.
Disposition
The court overruled Hussein’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in part, consistent with the order. It dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It denied Hussein’s motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and denied his motion for summary judgment as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.