Wise v. United States Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2025-1271
D.D.C.May 19, 2025Background
- Sam Wise, a pro se plaintiff and oral surgeon, filed suit alleging a multi-agency campaign of retaliation after whistleblowing activities, linking actions to federal, state, and judicial actors.
- Wise's licenses were suspended following numerous board complaints, as well as investigations into alleged billing discrepancies at his clinics.
- Wise attributed the adverse actions to an alleged conspiracy influenced by Dr. Daniel Haghighi, whom he claims wields undue political and intelligence-related influence, though Dr. Haghighi was not named as a defendant.
- The complaint asserted federal constitutional violations, civil conspiracy under §1985, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and various state law claims, seeking $24 million and injunctive relief.
- Wise requested injunctive relief due to alleged ongoing retaliation and purportedly improper proceedings involving multiple federal and state actors.
- The Court reviewed the case sua sponte before service, examining both the sufficiency of the pleadings and its own subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 8 and 12(b)(6) | Wise claims coordinated retaliation/conspiracy against him | N/A | Complaint too vague and conclusory; dismissed |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Federal question based on constitutional and civil rights claims | N/A | No plausible federal jurisdiction alleged |
| Injunctive relief | Sought TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions | N/A | Denied as moot due to dismissal |
| Fanciful allegations of conspiracy | Wise alleges intelligence/political conspiracy harmed him | N/A | Allegations too fanciful/insubstantial |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards, but still must state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible facts entitling a party to relief)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019) (courts must consider subject matter jurisdiction at any time)