Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00701/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00701-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331tt Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

– 1 – 17cv0701

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, JOHN 

GREGORY UNRUH,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT 

FBI’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(ECF No. 18);

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANT 

(ECF No. 13);

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF 

No. 7);

(4) DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

UNRUH WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

AND

(5) DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SERVICE BY PUBLICATION 

(ECF No. 15) AND FOR MENTAL 

EXAMINATION (ECF No. 17)

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
– 2 – 17cv0701

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

In his Complaint, filed pro per, Plaintiff Gavin B. Davis alleges that Defendant 

John Gregory Unruh committed domestic terrorism by “cyberstalking” him in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) (domestic terrorism/Patriot Act) and 47 U.S.C. §

223 (use of telecommunications device in interstate commerce to harass). (Compl. ¶¶

10, 14a (ECF No. 1)). Plaintiff further alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(“FBI”) failed to investigate this cyberstalking despite Plaintiff’s emails and 

telephone calls “imploring them” to do so. (Compl. ¶6.) Plaintiff now seeks to add a 

new defendant, who apparently is an FBI employee. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff claims 

this FBI agent “failed[ed] to reasonably follow-up on bona-fide evidence” identifying 

an individual on the FBI most-wanted list as Defendant Unruh. (ECF No. 13.)

The FBI moves to dismiss (ECF No. 18). The Court finds this motion suitable 

for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 

7.1(d)(1). Because the allegations involve the FBI’s “discretionary function,” the 

Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the FBI with prejudice and DENIES the

Motion to Add a New Defendant.1

I. Legal Standard

Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to 

dismiss an action based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(1). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian 

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial 

decree.” Id. (citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this 

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 

 

1 Plaintiff also admits he failed to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No. 19), so 

the Motion to Dismiss could be granted on this ground as well. Furthermore, because 

Plaintiff fails to allege the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and Plaintiff 

has failed to state a claim against Defendant Unruh under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court 

sua sponte dismisses the Complaint against Unruh with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s 

remaining motions are dismissed as moot. (ECF Nos. 7, 15, 17.)

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
– 3 – 17cv0701

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

asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus, “[w]hen subject matter 

jurisdiction is challenged under the Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff 

has the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Kingman Reef 

Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting

Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), 

abrogated on other grounds Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). The Court 

may raise the issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any point in 

the proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 

574, 583-84 (1999).

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court may 

also dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv.

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 

(9th Cir. 1981).

The court must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true 

and must construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the 

nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). 

To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual 

allegations, rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim 

has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement 

to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Despite the 

deference the court must pay to the plaintiff’s allegations, it is not proper for the court 

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
– 4 – 17cv0701

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

to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that 

defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated 

Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 

(1983).

As a general rule, a court freely grants leave to amend a complaint which has 

been dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend may be denied when 

“the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged 

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well 

Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).

II. FBI

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States may not be sued 

unless it expressly consents to be sued or unequivocally waives sovereign immunity. 

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 

1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969).) The 

Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleged by Plaintiff in this case, is such a waiver 

of sovereign immunity, but it is limited by the discretionary function exception. 

Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445, 1451 (9th Cir. 1996). “The discretionary 

function exception covers any FTCA claims ‘based upon the exercise or performance 

or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a 

federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion 

involved be abused.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)). “Where the discretionary 

function exception to the FTCA applies, no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.”

Id. (citing In re Glacier Bay, 71 F.3d 1447, 1450 (5th Cir. 1995)). 

The United States bears the burden of showing the discretionary function 

exception applies. Id. The Government must show that: (1) the action or inaction 

involved “an element of judgment or choice” (id. (quoting United States v. Gaubert, 

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
– 5 – 17cv0701

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

499 U.S. 315, 322 (1991))) and (2) the action or inaction involved “considerations of 

social, economic or political policy” (id. (quoting Glacier Bay, 71 F.3d at 1480)). 

The failure of the FBI to investigate Defendant Unruh, as alleged in this

Complaint, is such a discretionary function. It involves an element of judgment or 

choice. When deciding whether to investigate an alleged crime, the FBI considers 

many factors including the source of the information, its credibility, the amount of 

detail provided by the reporter, the seriousness of the alleged criminal activity, the

FBI’s jurisdiction over the crime, and the agency’s priorities, not to mention funding 

limitations and how those funds can best be allocated to various priorities. See 

Gonzalez v. United States, 814 F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2016) (FBI decision whether 

to share information involves an element of judgment or choice).

Furthermore, this decision involved considerations of social, economic, or 

political policy. See Sabow, 93 F.3d at 1453 (“Investigations by federal law 

enforcement officials . . . clearly require investigative officers to consider relevant 

political and social circumstances in making decisions about the nature and scope of 

a criminal investigation.”)

Therefore, the FBI, in its Motion to Dismiss, has met its burden of showing 

the discretionary function exception applies to the allegations in the Complaint. The 

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, under Rule 12(b)(6), the Motion 

to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 18.) Furthermore, because this Court finds that 

no facts claiming the FBI was negligent due to its failure to investigate another 

individual could avoid the discretionary function exception, the Court grants the 

Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend. See Schreiber Distrib. Co., 806 F.2d at

1401.

In addition, since any amendment to add an FBI agent—who allegedly failed 

to investigate Unruh’s similarity to an individual on the most-wanted list—would 

face similar subject matter dismissal, the Motion to Add a Defendant is DENIED as 

such an amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 13.) In his Response to the Motion to 

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
– 6 – 17cv0701

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

Dismiss, Plaintiff withdraws his Motion for Sanctions against the FBI, and the Court 

agrees the Motion is baseless, hence it too is DENIED. (ECF No. 7.)

III. Defendant Unruh

Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendant Unruh based on two federal criminal 

statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) (domestic terrorism) and 47 U.S.C. § 223(a) (use of 

telecommunications device in interstate communications to annoy, abuse, harass, or 

threaten any person). “[T]he fact that a federal statute has been violated and some 

person harmed does not automatically give rise to a private right of action.” Touche 

Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568 (1979) (quotation omitted). “Instead, the 

statute must either explicitly create a right of action or implicitly contain one.” In re 

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1230 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation 

omitted); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001 (Scalia, J.) (“Like 

substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal laws must be 

created by Congress”); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(finding that criminal provisions that provide no basis for civil liability do not give 

rise to a civil cause of action); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979) 

(“[T]his Court has rarely implied a private right of action under a criminal statute.”)

Neither statute Plaintiff seeks to invoke in his Complaint is a criminal 

provision providing for a private cause of action. Thus, various courts have concluded 

allegations that these criminal statutes were violated are insufficient to state a claim. 

See Jianjun Xie v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., No. C 12-02950 CRB, 2012 WL 

5869707 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2012) (holding that harassment under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 223 provides no civil remedy); Cox v. Randazza, No. 2:13-cv-00297-MMD-VCF, 

2013 WL 6408736, at *6 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2013) (stating that claims under 47 

U.S.C. § 223 are not properly brought in a civil complaint); Sloan v. Truong, 573 F. 

Supp. 2d 823, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (same); Boyd v. City of Oceanside Police Dep’t, 

No. 11-cv-3039-LAB (WMc), 2013 WL 5671164, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) 

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
– 7 – 17cv0701

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

(finding no private civil right of action under domestic terrorism statute, 18 U.S.C. §

2331); Archer v. City of Taft, No. 1:12-cv-00261-AWI-JLT, 2012 WL 1458136, at 

*6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2012) (same). This Court agrees. To the extent Plaintiff is 

claiming federal jurisdiction because of a violation of a federal criminal statute, he 

fails to state a claim and the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6).

To the extent Plaintiff is alleging some other state law claim, because there are 

no allegations about the amount in controversy, he fails to state sufficient information 

to show that subject matter jurisdiction exists in federal court. Therefore, the Court 

DISMISSES sua sponte the Complaint against Unruh, mooting the Motions for 

Service by Publication (ECF No. 15) and the Motion for Mental Examination of 

Unruh (ECF No. 17). However, the Court will give Plaintiff leave to amend the 

Complaint against Unruh only. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended Complaint 

against Unruh, he must put the basis of his claim and why it belongs in federal court. 

Simply alleging violation of a federal criminal statute is insufficient.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the FBI’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to add another FBI employee defendant. (ECF Nos. 13, 

18.) The Court DISMISSES sua sponte the remaining claims against Defendant 

Unruh, but gives Plaintiff leave to file an amended Complaint against Unruh only. 

Any amended Complaint must address the concerns expressed by the Court in this 

Order and must be filed no later than October 20, 2017. The remaining Motions 

(ECF Nos. 7, 15, 17) are DISMISSED as moot or withdrawn.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00701-BAS-AGS Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7