Tyson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

David Jay Tyson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Nicholas Rodgers, John Doe 1, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2. Tyson alleged that Rodgers and the Doe defendants broke into his home in 1987 and stole his invention, the “Flashing Footwear.” He alleged that the defendants later confessed to the FBI, but that the FBI did not contact him about his property and refused to return it because of his political beliefs. Tyson also alleged that the FBI harassed his family, encouraged family members not to help him, and entered his residence without a warrant to photograph or take other inventions. He sought a criminal investigation and an order requiring the FBI to return his prototypes.

The court had previously allowed Tyson to proceed without paying filing fees. It therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had jurisdiction over the claims.

Federal constitutional claims

The court construed Tyson’s constitutional allegations as potentially asserting a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a limited damages action against an individual federal officer for an alleged constitutional violation. The court held that such a claim cannot be brought against a federal agency such as the FBI. The court also noted that the FBI has immunity from suit unless that immunity has been waived.

The court declined to allow Tyson to amend the complaint to name individual FBI agents because the allegations did not state a constitutional claim. The Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment applies to convicted prisoners, and Tyson was not incarcerated. The Fifteenth Amendment, which concerns voting discrimination, had no apparent connection to the alleged facts. Any due-process claim involving federal agents would arise under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further concluded that the Federal Tort Claims Act provided an adequate remedy for any property loss caused by unauthorized federal conduct, defeating a procedural Fifth Amendment due-process claim.

The court said that Tyson’s allegations about entries into his home and the taking or photographing of his inventions might suggest a Fourth Amendment claim. However, the court concluded that any such claim against an individual federal defendant would be barred by the applicable three-year limitations period because the alleged events occurred in 1987. The court also found the allegations, considered as a whole, implausible under the pleading standard requiring enough facts to make liability plausible.

Claims against the individual defendants

The court held that Tyson’s allegations did not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege that Rodgers or the Doe defendants acted under state authority. The court treated any remaining claims against those defendants as potentially arising under state law. Because it dismissed the federal claims, the court declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Tyson might be asserting.

Disposition

The court dismissed Tyson’s Bivens claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tyson’s state-law claims and declined to grant leave to amend because amendment would be futile. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Tyson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.