900 F. Supp. 2d 51
D.D.C.2012Background
- Walsh, pro se, sues Hagee et al. for a multistate conspiracy and federal claims including FTCA and constitutional rights.
- Defendants move under Rule 12(b)(1), (2), (3), and/or (6) to dismiss for lack of subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.
- Court grants dismissal of Walsh’s claims against Axe for lack of personal jurisdiction; lacks subject matter jurisdiction over FTCA and several constitutional/statutory claims; and dismisses remaining claims for failure to state a claim or exhaustion problems.
- Allegations include a long-running, ultra-secret conspiracy, surveillance via ECHELON, interference with Walsh’s military records, false veterinary/medical actions, and murder-plot allegations.
- Court identifies Walsh’s theories as frivolous/bizarre conspiracy claims warranting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6).
- Conclusion: remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss granted; final order to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA and constitutional claims are jurisdictionally frivolous | Walsh asserts federal claims alleging a nationwide conspiracy harming him. | Defendants contend claims are patently insubstantial and fail Article III jurisdiction. | Claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Axe | Axe harassed Walsh and surveilled him; nexus to DC. | Axe is a Pennsylvania resident with no DC contacts related to the claims. | Personal jurisdiction over Axe not shown; dismissal granted. |
| Whether Walsh's 18 U.S.C. § 2712 claim is exhausted and properly before the court | Walsh submitted a claim to Clapper; seeks relief under § 2712. | No final agency denial shown; exhaustion not satisfied. | Lacks subject matter jurisdiction; § 2712 claim dismissed. |
| Whether Walsh states a claim under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 to correct his military record | Hagee and Poleto interfered with his § 1552 remedy. | Proceedings require final agency action or APA review with final decision. | Dismissed for lack of final agency action and failure to state a claim. |
| Whether Walsh states a Privacy Act or other remaining statutory claims | Claims straddle military records and privacy concerns. | Privacy Act not a proper vehicle to amend military records; other acts lack stated claims. | Dismissed; no viable Privacy Act, RICO, CVRA, VWP Act, or Fourteenth Amendment claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (frivolous or essentially fictitious claims may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court 1989) (frivolous or malicious suits may be dismissed under 12(b)(1))
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (requirement to plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction in 12(b)(2))
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court 1974) (jurisdictional pleadings and frivolous claims considered for dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility standard for surviving Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (facially plausible claim required, not just conceivable)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (due process and minimum contacts analysis for jurisdiction)
- GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (framework for personal jurisdiction and long-arm statute analysis)