Patrick J. Grady v. United States Government
702 F. App'x 929
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patrick J. Grady, pro se, sued multiple federal agencies (DOJ, DOD, IRS) alleging extensive covert surveillance and harassment.
- Allegations included planted cameras, sting operations at a bar, a microchip implanted in his ear by a nurse, a rooftop surveillance device causing physical symptoms, gang-stalking in public places, and electromagnetic/microwave surveillance.
- Grady claimed violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act, and alleged resulting health deterioration.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the claims "patently insubstantial."
- Grady appealed the dismissal; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional dismissal de novo and applied the standard for insubstantial or frivolous federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Grady's federal constitutional and statutory claims | Grady argued his factual allegations plausibly showed unconstitutional surveillance by federal agencies and thus invoked federal jurisdiction | Government defendants (through district court) maintained the complaint was so attenuated and without merit that it was insubstantial and jurisdictionally deficient | Court held the allegations were "wholly insubstantial and frivolous," so the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether pro se status relaxes pleading requirements enough to save the complaint | Grady relied on liberal construction of pro se pleadings to argue his allegations should be credited and survive dismissal | Court emphasized pro se lenity does not excuse compliance with procedural and jurisdictional rules; insubstantial claims need not be heard | Court applied pro se standard but concluded even under liberal construction the claims were far-fetched and properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (federal courts lack power to hear claims that are "so attenuated and unsubstantial" as to be devoid of merit)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 1998) (claims that are immaterial or wholly insubstantial may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal is de novo)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to allege facts establishing jurisdiction with particularity)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (pro se litigants still must follow procedural rules)
- McGinnis v. Ingram Equip. Co., 918 F.2d 1491 (11th Cir. 1990) (test for federal jurisdiction includes whether cause of action is patently without merit)