Jean-Baptiste v. United State Department of Justice

Background

Harold Jean-Baptiste sued the United States Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director Christopher Wray, United States Attorney Damian Williams, the City of New York, Mayor Eric Adams, and Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell. He represented himself. The complaint alleged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated and monitored him, tampered with his vehicle’s vehicle identification number, tried to set him up for arrest, and influenced the New York City Police Department’s handling of his concealed-carry license application.

Jean-Baptiste asserted claims involving the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; several federal criminal statutes; and New York criminal statutes. He sought preliminary injunctions, default judgment against the Federal Defendants, and an order requiring production of Freedom of Information Act records.

Jurisdiction and Service

The court first considered whether it had authority over the claims and defendants. It found that Jean-Baptiste had not properly served the City Defendants because he mailed the summons and amended complaint without following the required service procedures. The court also found that he had not properly served the Federal Defendants under the federal rules governing service on the United States, its agencies, and its officers. The defendants had not waived the service defense, and the court declined to give Jean-Baptiste additional time because it concluded that an extension would be futile.

The court also found that Jean-Baptiste had not established subject-matter jurisdiction for his Second Amendment claims. His concealed-carry application was still pending and had not exceeded the six-month period in New York’s licensing statute. The court further found that he had not shown that the New York City Police Department had refused to process the application, particularly because he had declined to appear in person for fingerprinting. The court therefore dismissed the Second Amendment claims without prejudice.

Failure to State a Claim

The court concluded that the remaining claims failed to state legally sufficient claims. It dismissed the official-capacity claims against Adams, Sewell, Garland, and Wray as duplicative of claims against their governmental entities. It dismissed the claims against Williams because the amended complaint did not mention or refer to him or the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The court held that the federal and New York criminal statutes cited by Jean-Baptiste did not create private rights of action, meaning that those statutes did not allow him to bring a civil lawsuit based on alleged violations. It also held that the Ninth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, as pleaded, did not provide the substantive rights needed for his claims. The Fourth Amendment and Electronic Communications Privacy Act claims were dismissed because the allegations that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored his email and phone calls were conclusory and lacked sufficient supporting facts.

Because the court found the remaining claims clearly frivolous and concluded that amendment would be futile, it dismissed those claims with prejudice. The opinion’s conclusion states that all claims other than the Second Amendment claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied both motions for preliminary injunction because Jean-Baptiste had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The court denied the motions for default judgment because the Federal Defendants had not been properly served and because Jean-Baptiste did not follow the required procedures for obtaining a certificate of default and seeking default judgment. It also noted that one revised motion sought default against defendants who had been given additional time to respond.

The court denied the motion seeking Freedom of Information Act records. It found the request moot after dismissing the claims and also found it procedurally improper because the complaint did not assert a Freedom of Information Act claim. The motion did not show that Jean-Baptiste had made a request, received a denial, or completed the required administrative appeal process.

Result

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss; dismissed all claims against the Federal Defendants on the court’s own initiative; denied both motions for preliminary injunction, the motions for default judgment, and the motion for Freedom of Information Act records; dismissed the Second Amendment claims without prejudice; dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice; directed the Clerk to close the case; and terminated the listed motions.