Stanton v. Unknown Agent or Agency
697 F. App'x 586
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jamie Stanton, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued unnamed John Doe defendants in the District of Kansas alleging multi-year surveillance and a GPS/tracking device on his car.
- He described repeated vehicle tailing across multiple states (Colorado, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kansas), police cars repeatedly passing or following him on foot, and unusual phenomena in apartments (HVAC activation, banging, a hole behind a refrigerator).
- He alleged bystander cellphones vibrate near him and gas-station attendants watch him; he inferred these facts indicate coordinated surveillance and a tracking device placed on his vehicle before Dec. 2013.
- He has not attempted to locate or remove any alleged tracking device, produced no physical evidence of a device, and reported no police stops, questioning, or custody.
- He asserted claims under the Fourth Amendment, various constitutional provisions (Fifth, Fourteenth, Article IV §2), Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and alleged racial profiling, but provided no factual basis tying conduct to racial discrimination.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations plausibly show a Fourth Amendment search (installation/use of a tracking device) | Stanton alleges prolonged following, vehicle behavior consistent with tracking, and other surveillance indicators; infers a GPS/tracking device on his car | Defendants argue (implicitly via deficiencies) that allegations are speculative, lack physical evidence, no police contact, and therefore fail plausibly to allege an illegal search | Court held allegations were speculative and implausible; no physical evidence or motive alleged; dismissal affirmed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal follows Rule 12(b)(6) and pro se complaints are liberally construed but must meet procedural rules)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and use of a GPS device on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (visual surveillance and tracking of a vehicle on public roads does not implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy)