[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 10586 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:16

- cv - 14293

- RLR

PATRICK J. GRADY, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPAR TMENT OF JUSTICE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Covington & B urling LLP , et al., Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( November 8, 2017 ) Case: 17-10586 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Page: 1 of 52 Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN, and JULIE CARNES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Patrick J. Grady, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint allegi ng constitutional and statutory violations for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction

. After careful review, we affirm.
I. Grady’s complaint alleged that various government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Defense, a nd the Internal Revenue Service, were performing covert surveillance on him. This surveillance included the following: (1) installation of cameras in and near his apartment complex; (2) sting operations at a bar in Palm Beach County; (3) implantation of a microchip in his ear; (4) placement of a surveillance device on the roof of an adjacent building, which caused Grady to suffer from popping sounds, headaches, sneezing, voices, nightmares, chest pains, and more; (5) “gang

- stalk[ing]” at public libraries and theatres by covert agents who would sit near Grady and disrupt him by making loud noises or coughing; and (6) “electromagnetic microwave surveillance.” Grady claimed the government’s surveillance amounted to harassment and violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution ,

Case: 17-10586 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Page: 2 of 53 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 , as well as the USA PATRIOT
Act

. He also claimed it caused his health to deteriorate. The district court dismissed Grady’s complaint because “[it] is patently insubstantial” and therefore the court lacked subject

- matter jurisdiction

. On appeal, Grady argues this was error because he raised plausible claims of unconstitutional behavior by the g overnment defendants.
I I

. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 12(b)(1). Barbour v. Haley , 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006). It i s generally the plaintiff’s burden to allege, with partic ularity, facts necessary to establish jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co. , 228 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2000). “ Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard [ of review ] than [ counseled ] pleadings

. . . and will, therefore, be libera lly construed. ” Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) ( per curiam ). Nevertheless, pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc. , 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

. “[F]ederal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit. ” Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536 , 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379

Case: 17-10586 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Page: 3 of 54 (1974) (quotation omitt ed ). Even where a clai m appears to arise under the Constitution or a federal statute, it may b e dismissed for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction if it is (1) “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction,” or (2) “ wholly insubstan tial and frivolous.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sanders , 138 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 1998 ) (quotation omitted) ; see McGinnis v. Ingram Equip

. Co. , 918 F.2d 1491, 1494 (11th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (“The test of federal jurisdiction is . . . whether the cause of action alleged is so patently without merit as to justify the court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” (quotation omitted and alteration adopted))

. III. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Grady’s complai nt for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction

. Grady’s allegations

— that the government employed surveillance specialists to harass him while he wa s in the library and at theater s ; performed sting operations at local bars ; used electromagnetic surveillance , cameras , and rooftop devices to monitor him ; and had a nurse act as a cove rt operative to implant a micro chip in his ear

— are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be devoid of merit. See Hagans , 415 U.S. at 536 , 94 S. Ct. at 1379

. Although his claims app ear to arise under the Constitution and federal statute s , they are far

- fetched, wholly unsupported and therefore

Case: 17-10586 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Page: 4 of 55 insubstantial and friv olous. They were properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1)

. See id. ; Sanders , 138 F.3d at 1352. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10586 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Page: 5 of 5