885 F. Supp. 2d 390
D.D.C.2012Background
- Harris sues Attorney General Holder and FBI/DOJ officials in their official and individual capacities after alleged long-running disclosures and surveillance tied to the Andrews Air Force Base extortion investigation.
- Plaintiff alleges violations of the Privacy Act, 28 C.F.R. § 50.2, and First and Fifth Amendment rights, arising from allegedly willful disclosures and harassment over seven years affecting employment prospects.
- Plaintiff claims FBI/DOJ actions included monitoring communications, intercepting emails, and disseminating false information to chill her speech and pursuit of employment.
- She lists multiple federal and private sector job rejections and describes a pattern of alleged defamation and coercive conduct linked to the extortion investigation and its aftermath.
- The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages; the court later grants the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court analyzes official-capacity sovereign immunity, Bivens claims against individual defendants, and Private Right of Action issues under Privacy Act and 28 C.F.R. § 50.2, concluding dismissal is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff states a viable Bivens claim against individual defendants | Harris asserts personal involvement by AG Holder and FBI/DOJ officials in infringing rights. | Defendants argue no plausible factual basis and that claims are boilerplate. | Bivens claims dismissed for lack of plausible factual support. |
| Whether official-capacity claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Claims seek relief from DOJ/FBI officials in their official capacities. | Sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States and its agencies for constitutional claims. | Official-capacity/agency claims barred; no subject-matter jurisdiction for monetary damages. |
| Whether the Privacy Act claim is cognizable | Defendants disclosed records in a system of records causing adverse effects. | Record details are insufficient to identify a system of records or any disclosed information. | Privacy Act claim dismissed for lack of identifiable records and proper system-of-records pleadings. |
| Whether 28 C.F.R. § 50.2 provides a private right of action | Defendants violated DOJ policy provisions prohibiting communications that could affect trials. | No private right of action exists under § 50.2. | No private right of action under § 50.2; claim fails. |
| Whether qualified immunity protects defendants from Bivens claims | Not asserted separately; Harris argues rights were violated in clear terms. | Even if claims were stated, qualified immunity would apply given lack of clearly established rights. | Qualified immunity would bar Bivens claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; reject bare assertions)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity for officials unless clearly established rights violated)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies sequencing of qualified-immunity analysis)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1991) (constitutional liberty interests require specific linkage to conduct)
- Hatfill v. Ashcroft, 404 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2005) (no private right of action under 28 C.F.R. § 50.2)
- Logan v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 357 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2004) (privacy act disclosure requirements and remedies)
- Malesko v. United States, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (Bivens remedies against federal officers)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (sovereign immunity in official-capacity suits)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (sovereign-immunity consent required; not implied)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2004) (Privacy Act basics and remedies)
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (insubstantial conclusory pleadings)
- Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (require concrete chilling evidence for First Amendment retaliation)