Salaverria v. The United States of America

Background

Alex Alfonso Salaverria, appearing without a lawyer, filed this action against the United States of America, the Department of Homeland Security, the Vice President of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the States of Nevada, California, and Florida. He alleged violations of his rights under a court-created damages remedy for certain constitutional violations involving federal officials, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. He sought money damages.

Salaverria alleged that federal agents, working with the Los Angeles Police Department, surveilled him and obtained private information. He also alleged that agents took his mail, confidential documents, and medications. He described an alleged operation in Las Vegas involving technology that he said affected his nervous system, an arrest by Las Vegas police, and detention at the Clark County Detention Center. He further alleged that he was not given medical treatment or required medications while detained. The opinion states that the events appeared to have occurred in Nevada, California, and Florida, with no apparent connection to New York or the Southern District of New York.

Legal standards

Because Salaverria had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss the action if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court said it was required to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally and to consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the pleading.

A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court explained that factual allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, and that a legal theory may be frivolous when it is indisputably without merit.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not allege facts supporting a plausible legal claim, even when read liberally. It held that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, the Vice President, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that immunity. The court noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a waiver for certain tort claims, but found that the allegations did not suggest that the Act applied here.

The court also held that Salaverria failed to state a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim because he did not allege facts showing that he was injured in his business or property as a result of an agreement to form a racketeering enterprise and commit the required acts. The court described allegations that federal agents used technology to control his nervous system as largely incoherent, irrational, or wholly incredible. It therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous because it lacked a basis in law or fact.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to allow another amendment because she concluded that the defects could not be cured and that Salaverria had already amended once.

The court denied as moot Salaverria’s motion for an immediate protective order and his motion to introduce evidence and exhibits for litigation. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate other pending matters. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.