Nazer v. Israel State

Background

Izzat Nazer, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the State of Israel, the Israeli Mossad, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights and were responsible for abuse of power, abuse of process, and defamation. He sought damages and preventive measures. He also applied for the court to request free legal counsel.

The complaint described alleged events in New York, Europe, Florida, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates from 2010 through the present. Nazer alleged that the defendants used his name in intelligence schemes, violated his speech and privacy rights, caused poverty, isolation, and homelessness, drove him to addiction, and tried to use him as an unwilling informer. The opinion states that the complaint was difficult to understand and that Nazer did not provide factual support showing that the alleged events occurred.

Screening standard

Because Nazer had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees and was a prisoner, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from immune defendants, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to dismiss an action if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, while interpreting a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Claims against the federal agencies

The court dismissed the claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security under the government’s immunity from suit. The court interpreted Nazer’s requests for preventive relief as claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and his damages claims as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

For the Administrative Procedure Act claims, the court explained that the statute provides a limited waiver of immunity for review of a final federal-agency action and does not authorize monetary damages. The court dismissed the claims because Nazer did not allege that he was challenging a final agency action.

For the Federal Tort Claims Act claims, the court explained that the proper defendant is the United States, rather than an individual federal agency. It also explained that a claimant generally must first submit an administrative damages claim to the appropriate federal entity and receive a final written determination, or wait six months without one, before filing in federal court. Nazer did not allege that he completed this process. The court separately held that the Act’s waiver does not cover defamation claims, including libel and slander, and does not cover certain abuse-of-process claims. The court dismissed the remaining Federal Tort Claims Act claims as well for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because they sought monetary relief from immune defendants.

Claims against Israel and the Israeli Mossad

The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides the exclusive basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over a foreign state and its agencies or instrumentalities. It treated the State of Israel as a foreign state and the Israeli Mossad as an agency of that state. Because Nazer’s allegations did not fit any applicable exception to immunity, the court dismissed the claims against both defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because they sought monetary relief from immune defendants.

Frivolousness and amendment

The court additionally dismissed the claims as frivolous. It stated that, even apart from sovereign immunity, the allegations were largely irrational or wholly incredible and lacked factual support or a viable legal theory for a civil claim. The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment.

Other rulings and warning

The court denied Nazer’s application for the court to request free legal counsel as moot. It directed the clerk to enter judgment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Nazer permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The court also warned that, because of Nazer’s litigation history, future duplicative, frivolous, or otherwise nonmeritorious actions against the United States, federal agencies, foreign states, or foreign-state agencies or instrumentalities could lead to an order restricting his ability to file future civil actions without prior court permission.