Saucier v. U.S. Department of Justice
1:18-cv-00800
N.D.N.Y.Feb 13, 2019Background
- Kristian M. Saucier pleaded guilty in May 2016 to unauthorized retention of defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e)), was sentenced to 12 months, released in Sept. 2017, and pardoned by President Trump in March 2018.
- Saucier (pro se) sued the DOJ, former executive officials (Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Obama) under Bivens, alleging violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments arising from his federal prosecution and related searches/seizures.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) and improper service/venue; Saucier opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment and sought leave to serve the individual defendants.
- The complaint did not clearly allege individual-capacity claims or facts tying the named officials to the alleged constitutional violations (no specific allegations of their personal involvement).
- Service: only three summonses were mailed (U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ offices); no individual defendant was personally served per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, and Saucier’s administrative tort claim filing led to confusion about service.
- Court determined sovereign immunity bars official-capacity Bivens claims, and that service and the complaint’s lack of specific individual misconduct made further service futile; dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars suit against DOJ and officials in official capacity | Saucier contends he intended official and individual suits and challenges constitutionality of immunity | Government: sovereign immunity bars Bivens suits against federal agencies/officials in official capacity | Dismissed: sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims |
| Whether individual defendants were properly served under Rule 4 and Rule 4(i)(3) | Saucier says he intended to serve individuals and requests leave to correct service | Government: individuals not served; only DOJ/USA offices were served | Dismissed: no proper service; Rule 4(m) relief denied as futile |
| Whether complaint states viable Bivens claims against named officials individually | Saucier alleges constitutional violations arising from prosecution and searches | Government: complaint lacks allegations of personal involvement by named officials | Dismissed: complaint fails to plead personal involvement; subsequent service would be futile |
| Whether case should be transferred or summary judgment granted | Saucier sought relief and asserted venue/service confusion | Government sought dismissal/transfer; argued failure to state claim and lack of service | Denied as moot: venue transfer and plaintiff's summary judgment denied; case dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards require factual allegations to support legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71 (district court may consider evidence outside pleadings on Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenges)
- Sprecher v. Graber, 716 F.2d 968 (sovereign immunity of the United States and federal agencies)
- Barbera v. Smith, 836 F.2d 96 (Bivens claim requires allegations of personal and direct involvement)
- Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502 (pro se complaints against federal defendants construed as Bivens claims)