885 F. Supp. 2d 978
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs, three Muslim residents of Southern California, sue the FBI, the United States, and seven FBI officers over Operation Flex (2006–2007) conducted with an informant, Monteilh.
- Plaintiffs allege Monteilh was paid by the FBI to infiltrate mosques under an assumed Muslim-convert identity and collect information.
- They claim a dragnet surveillance operation produced hundreds of hours of video, thousands of hours of audio, and extensive data collection on Muslims, sometimes without Monteilh present.
- Plaintiffs assert claims under the First Amendment, RFRA, Equal Protection, Privacy Act, Fourth Amendment, FISA §1810, and FTCA.
- Defendants move to dismiss, with the order addressing the FISA claim: government-wide dismissal granted; claims against Agent Defendants remain pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars §1810 damages against the Government. | FISA §1810 waives immunity for aggrieved persons. | Congress did not waive sovereign immunity for §1810 claims against the Government. | §1810 claims against Government are dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether Agent Defendants may be denied FISA damages under qualified immunity. | Agents violated clearly established FISA rights. | Qualified immunity shields them absent clearly established rights. | Agent Defendants' motions denied; qualified immunity not warranted at this stage. |
| Whether Plaintiffs are 'aggrieved persons' with standing to bring FISA §1810 claim. | Plaintiffs seek redress for alleged electronic surveillance violations. | No standing under §1810 for government damages for these surveillances. | Court finds Plaintiffs are aggrieved persons; however, sovereign immunity precludes government liability notwithstanding. |
| Whether the §1810 claim can proceed against individual agents in light of Iqbal and supervisor liability principles. | Supervisors knowingly directed and supervised surveillance violating FISA. | Iqbal requires plausible individual conduct for supervisor liability. | Alleges specific acts by Rose; Iqbal satisfied; individual liability not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- AlHaramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Obama, 690 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) (explicitly held no sovereign-immunity waiver for §1810 damages)
- ACLU v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007) (aggrieved-person standing aligns with Fourth Amendment standing)
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (sovereign immunity waiver must be unequivocally expressed)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit and strictly construed)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (reasonable expectation of privacy includes protection in certain contexts)