Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 22-cv-1861 (TSC)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, et al.,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Harold Jean-Baptiste brings this action alleging that unidentified individuals 

attempted to kidnap him. He claims that while he was on a walk between 10:00 am and 10:30 am on 

June 23, 2022, a van pulled out of a driveway and drove in his direction, but when he pointed a 

camera phone at the vehicle to record the incident, the unidentified driver drove away. ECF No. 5, 

Third Am. Compl. at 5. He claims that later, during the same walk, another van with commercial 

license plates pulled up next to him, but he crossed the street and the van sped away, as the 

unidentified driver smirked at him. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff claims a neighbor can identify the persons

involved as FBI agents. Id. at 5. His Complaint includes a photograph of two unidentified persons 

walking down a street wearing reflective safety vests. Id. at 6. 

Plaintiff’s allegations rest on unsubstantiated hypotheses about what unidentified persons may 

have planned. He has not alleged any conduct by these unidentified persons that violates a law or 

right entitling him to relief. 
Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff also alleges that the FBI “flagged” him for an investigation pursuant to the “National 

Security Letters (NSL) classification as a tool [to] conspire to slander, harass, discriminate, and 

destroy the character of the plaintiff.” Id. at 8; see id. at 10 (cleaned up). “The FBI may issue an 

NSL, a form of administrative subpoena, to a wire– or electronic-communications service provider 

seeking non-content information, as long as the Bureau certifies that the records sought are ‘relevant 

to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence 

activities.’” In re Na’l Sec. Letters, No. CV 16-518 (JEB), 2016 WL 7017215, at *1 (D.D.C. July 25, 

2016) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2709(b)(1)). It is unclear whether the subject of such letters has a cause of 

action under federal law, but even if they do, Plaintiff has not cited a provision of a federal statute 

providing for such relief, and he has provided no facts supporting for his allegation that he was the 

subject of an NSL. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations fail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which 

requires that a complaint contain, inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Specifically, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to 

“give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007) (citation and alteration omitted). Plaintiff has not 

asserted any facts supporting a potential claim relating to an NSL. 

Plaintiff claims he then submitted one or more FOIA requests, but he does not provide any 

facts about the purported requests, such as when he submitted them, and to whom. Third Am. 

Compl. at 3. As such, his FOIA claims also fail to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a). 

Finally, Plaintiff cites to at least twenty or more statutes in his Complaint, but does not 

explain the relevance of these citations. 
Page 3 of 3

And Plaintiff’s recently filed “Emergency Motion for Injunction,” ECF No. 11, does not 

change the outcome. Plaintiff seeks an “injunction to vacate any investigation or Order for Rendition 

or Executive Order to do harm on the plaintiff by Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 

Investigations, or any other branch of government.” Id. at 1. A preliminary injunction is an 

“extraordinary” remedy that “should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear 

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunction, the movant bears the burden of showing that: (1) 

“he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Because Plaintiff has 

not adequately stated a valid claim for relief, he also has not established any likelihood of success on 

the merits, and his motion fails. 

Accordingly, this court will deny Plaintiff’s emergency motion for an injunction and will 

dismiss this action without prejudice. 

Date: August 1, 2022

Tanya S. Chutkan 

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge