Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05741/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05741-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

Case No. 5:15-cv-05741-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO ESTABLISH THE FBI 

AS A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND DENYING MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD N. STRILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU 

OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-05741-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO 

ESTABLISH THE FBI AS A REAL 

PARTY IN INTEREST AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

(Re: Docket No. 7, 13, 25)

Plaintiff Richard N. Striley sued the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation for 

nuisance, but did not quite mean to.1 He now asks the court to order the FBI to investigate and 

identify the actual, but unknown, defendant causing the nuisance, and also seeks a case 

management conference.

2

 The United States moves to dismiss.

3

 The United States’ motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend, Striley’s request to establish the FBI as a real party 

in interest is DENIED and Striley’s request for a case management conference is DENIED as 

moot.

I.

Striley initially sued the FBI and an unknown defendant in Monterey County Superior

 

1

See Docket No. 1

2

See Docket Nos. 13, 25.

3

See Docket No. 7.

Case 5:15-cv-05741-PSG Document 26 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:15-cv-05741-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO ESTABLISH THE FBI 

AS A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND DENYING MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

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

Northern District of California

Court, alleging claims of nuisance caused by the unknown defendant.

4

The nuisance allegedly 

occurred at several public locations and consisted of high-range rays affecting minds, cars and 

buses.5 The FBI removed this case to federal court and the United States was automatically 

substituted as a defendant, because it appeared that Striley was suing the FBI for tort claims.

6

 

When the United States moved to dismiss,7however, Striley clarified that he did not intend 

to sue the FBI for his tort claims.

8 What he actually wanted was for the FBI to investigate on his 

behalf and identify the unknown defendant causing the nuisance.

9 He now seeks to establish the 

FBI as a real party in interest to this case and asks the court to authorize the FBI to investigate his 

allegations.

10 Striley specifically seeks to compel the FBI to act under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the 

Mandamus Act.

11

The court heard argument on the United States’ motion to dismiss on February 9, 2016.12 

Striley did not attend due to confusion about the date of the hearing.

13

 He asks for a new hearing 

date for a case management conference.14

 

4

See Docket No. 1-1 at 4-9.

5

See id. at 5-6.

6

See Docket No. 1 at ¶ 3.

7

See Docket No. 7.

8

See Docket No. 13 at 1.

9

See id.

10 See id. at 10, 12-13.

11 See id. at 10.

12 See Docket No. 24.

13 See Docket No. 25 at 1.

14 See id.

Case 5:15-cv-05741-PSG Document 26 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:15-cv-05741-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO ESTABLISH THE FBI 

AS A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND DENYING MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

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

Northern District of California

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties consented to the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a).15

Section 1361 gives district courts “original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of 

mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform 

a duty owed to the plaintiff.”

16

 In order to request a writ of mandamus under this statute, the 

plaintiff must first establish that the court possesses federal subject matter jurisdiction over the 

specific mandamus action.17 Because mandamus writs are extraordinary remedies, a writ of 

mandamus is available to compel a federal official to perform a duty only when ‘“(1) the 

individual’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the official’s duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and 

so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.’”

18

III.

Applying the above standards, it is clear that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

over Striley’s request for mandamus. In order to receive a writ of mandamus compelling the FBI 

to investigate on Striley’s behalf, the FBI must have a nondiscretionary, ministerial duty to 

investigate. However, the FBI’s decisions whether to investigate criminal complaints are 

discretionary and not ministerial.19 As a result, the court cannot authorize or compel the FBI to 

 

15 See Docket Nos. 8, 12.

16 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361.

17 See Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd, 695 F.2d 1179, 1180 (9th Cir. 1983).

18 Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 

(9th Cir. 1998)).

19 See, e.g., Zeiny v. Johnson, Case No. 5:13-CV-03585-EJD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23884 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 24, 2014); Brown v. Mueller, Case No. 2:12-CV-02321 KJM, 2013 WL 3199075, at *3-

4 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2013); Morrison v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 5:13-CV-00654 JSW,

2013 WL 1964930, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2013); Terrell v. Attorney Gen. State of Cal., Case 

Case 5:15-cv-05741-PSG Document 26 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:15-cv-05741-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO ESTABLISH THE FBI 

AS A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND DENYING MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

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

Northern District of California

investigate Striley’s claims, and Striley’s request is DENIED.

As for the United States’ motion to dismiss, Striley himself states that he did not intend to 

sue the FBI for the ray-emitting nuisances and sued the FBI only “to acquire necessary means to 

an end and to give to a privation of information.”

20

 That is, Striley sued the FBI only to compel 

them to investigate. As discussed above, the court cannot compel the FBI to investigate this case, 

and so the United States’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

Dismissal without leave to amend is only appropriate if it is clear that the complaint could 

not be saved by amendment,

21 and leave to amend should be “freely given.”22 Striley has not 

previously received leave to amend, and so normally leave to amend would be granted, especially 

in light of his pro se status. However, the Ninth Circuit is clear that the FBI’s decisions on what to 

investigate are discretionary, and so amendment cannot save Striley’s complaint. Leave to amend 

is DENIED.

Because the case is dismissed, Striley’s request for a case management conference is 

DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

No. 5:98-CV-00219 VRW, 1998 WL 574387, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 1998), aff’d 188 F.3d 515 

(9th Cir. 1999).

20 Docket No. 13 at 1.

21 See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

22 Fed. R. CIv. P. 15(a)(2).

Case 5:15-cv-05741-PSG Document 26 Filed 02/18/16 Page 4 of 4