Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00543/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00543-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Docket No. 16

2

 After obtaining Plaintiff’s address on the eve the first scheduled hearing on this matter, this Court issued an Order

to Show Cause on June 19, 2007 requesting Plaintiff to: 1) indicate whether he intends to prosecute this case; and 2) respond

to Defendant’s Motion. Docket No. 24. On June 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a memorandum containing his intention to “follow

through” with the case and his opposition to the Motion before the court. Docket No. 25. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JIBREEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. DEPT OF STATE,

Defendant. /

No. C07-00543 MJJ

(Related Case Nos. C07-00546 & C07-00547)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant United States Department of State’s (“Defendant” or United

States”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).1

 Pro

se Plaintiff Adam Jibreel, a.k.a. Adam Blake, (“Plaintiff”) opposes Defendant’s motion.2

 For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The material facts as alleged by Plaintiff in his complaint are as follows. Plaintiff has been

“maligned by [his] own government’s hard working agents” and incorrectly listed in a “number of

databases.” (Pl.’s Compl.at ¶¶ 2-3.) As a result, Plaintiff requests monetary relief from the “U.S.

Case 3:07-cv-00543-MJJ Document 34 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Department of State, [t]he U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, [t]he U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, and the U.S. Coast Guard Division of Intelligence.” (Id. at ¶ 1.) In addition to monetary

renumeration, Plaintiff seeks the “return” of a U.S. passport applied for in August of 2004. (Id.)

Plaintiff does not specify any particular causes of action nor clarify which named Defendants are

responsible for the individual alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiff only seeks damages for the following:

a three month incarceration by unspecified government agents; “intrusion into . . . personal or sexual

propensities or nuances”; estrangement from his son who resides in Canada; and loss of job

opportunities and benefits due to records in “federal or municipal databases.” (Id. at ¶¶ 1-4.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a claim for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; thus, the Court

presumes lack of jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the

burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring that a pleading state the grounds

for the court’s jurisdiction). A party challenging the court's jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may do

so by raising either a facial attack or a factual attack. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th

Cir. 2000). 

A facial attack is one where “the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a

complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v.

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a facial attack to jurisdiction, the Court

must accept the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true. See Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d

1156, 1157 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001). For a factual attack, in contrast, the Court may consider extrinsic

evidence. See Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, the court does

not have to assume the truthfulness of the allegations, and may resolve any factual disputes. See

White, 227 F.3d at 1242. Thus, “[o]nce the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a

factual motion by presenting affidavits or evidence properly before the court, the party opposing the

motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction.” Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-00543-MJJ Document 34 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

 Defendant also notes that Plaintiff cannot bring a tort action against individual federal agencies under the FTCA

since such suits must be brought against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a). 

3

2003). 

 In the Ninth Circuit, “[j]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question

jurisdiction are exceptional, and must satisfy the requirements specific in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678

[] (1946).” Sun Valley Gas., Inc. v. Ernst Enters., 711 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1983); see Safe Air for

Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. The Bell standard provides that jurisdictional dismissals are warranted

“where the alleged claim under the [C]onstitution or federal statute clearly appears to be immaterial

and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly

insubstantial and frivolous.” 327 U.S. at 682-83. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has admonished

that a “[j]urisdictional finding of genuinely disputed facts is inappropriate when ‘the jurisdictional

issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the

resolution of factual issues going to the merits’ of an action.” Sun Valley, 711 F.2d at 139. The

jurisdictional issue and the substantive issues are intertwined where “a statute provides the basis for

both the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive claim for

relief.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Sun Valley, 711 F.2d at 139). 

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege any jurisdictional grounds authorizing this

Court to hear his action, nor state any facts from which to infer such grounds. Specifically,

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not meet the subject matter jurisdictional prerequisite to file a

Federal Tort Claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), and should be barred from proceeding with his

claims until they have reached administrative exhaustion.3

 

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the “United States, as sovereign, is immune from

suit save as it consents to be sued.” U.S. v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). In addition, the

government has the ability to define the terms under which it may be sued. Id. The Federal Tort

Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80, provides a limited waiver of sovereign

immunity under certain specific conditions. The claim requirement of the FTCA is jurisdictional,

and may not be waived. Burns v. United States, 764 F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir.1985). Section 2675(a)

Case 3:07-cv-00543-MJJ Document 34 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

 Because the Court has resolved Defendant’s motion on jurisdictional grounds, the Court need not reach

Defendant’s assertions that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

4

requires that any action brought against the United States for monetary damages alleged as a result

of negligence, wrongful acts, or omissions of any government employee be first presented to the

appropriate Federal agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The claim must either then be finally denied in

writing or six months must elapse before claimant is permitted to file suit. 

On this record, Plaintiff may not avail himself of the limited waiver of sovereign immunity

provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act. On the face of his complaint, Plaintiff does not allege that

any of his claims have been presented to the appropriate agencies, nor suggest that any of his claims

have reached a final administrative adjudication. In response, Defendant presents a declaration

stating that a search of United States Department of State records for Plaintiff’s name and known

aliases reveals “no evidence that Plaintiff has filed an administrative claim under the Federal Tort

Claims Act.” (Decl. of Jennifer Toole at ¶¶ 2-4.) In order to assert a claim against the United States

in Federal Court for the actions of its agents, Plaintiff must first file a claim with the appropriate

agency itself and obtain a final determination through that process. Because Plaintiff’s complaint

dose not demonstrate compliance with these FTCA requirements, and because Plaintiff does not

refute Defendant’s evidence of noncompliance, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss.4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Court DISMISSES this action WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the filing of this Order to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00543-MJJ Document 34 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 4