Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PER ANDREW BANNER

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv120/RV/EMT

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al.

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Per Andrew Banner, appearing pro se, initiated this cause by filing a complaint on

the form for use by pro se litigants in actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1346 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(doc. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 3). Leave to so proceed was

denied, and the filing fee has been paid (docs. 6 & 7). 

On the first page of the complaint form, Plaintiff lists “Fort Meade/Pentagon” as the only

Defendant. On the second page of the form, he lists National Security Agency and Pentagon as two

separate Defendants. In Plaintiff’s statement of facts he asserts “brain zapping,” and he claims that

he and his family were “zapped” in South America in the 1960's without their consent. He asserts

that he was told this by electronic voices that he refers to as “Program Bias” (doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff

claims that the National Security Agency (“NSA”) has used its technology incorrectly and that he

has suffered extreme loss of personal property as a result (id. at 4). He also asserts that his parents

“met an intentional demise by the NSA with their Program Bias” and that it was “these Program Bias

that confirmed their demise” (id.). When instructed in section IV of the complaint form to state what

Case 3:11-cv-00120-RV-EMT Document 9 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

rights he contends have been violated, Plaintiff cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1

and states “see all attachments” (id. at 5). He seeks seven billion dollars in damages (id.). 2

A federal court is obliged to dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir.

2005); University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999)

(once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless

to continue); Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). A court should inquire into

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings, and in fact,

a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be

lacking. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting University

of South Alabama, 168 F.3d at 410). The burden is on the party asserting jurisdiction to demonstrate

that jurisdiction does, in fact, exist. Lovern, 190 F.3d at 654 (citing Thomas v. Gaskill, 315 U.S.

442, 446, 62 S. Ct. 673, 86 L. Ed. 951 (1942); Goldsmith v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 845

F.2d 61, 64 (4th Cir. 1988)). In this case, the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint reveal no

discernable basis for federal jurisdiction. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not

provide a private right of action, and neither it—nor any of the attachments to the complaint—offer

any jurisdictional basis for this case. Therefore, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 3

 This document was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1

1948. See http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml. 

Attachments to the complaint include a partial copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a thirteen- 2

page missive written by Dave Bader about Modern Human Experimentation/Torture that details his experience of having

voices in his head beginning in 1993 (see http://www.netti.fi/~makako/mind/d_bader.htm); a twenty-four page printout

from American Patriot Friends network titled “NSA Mind Control and Psyops”; three pages of handwritten notations

relating to this case; and a nine-page printout titled “Covert Operations of the U.S. National Security Agency” by John

St. Clair Akwei that reflects it is from an article in Nexus Magazine April/May 96 from “MindControlForums” Website.

 In addition, even if there were some jurisdictional basis for this case, Plaintiff’s own allegations reveal that 3

the alleged “zapping” took place in the 1960's, likely well beyond the scope of any potentially applicable statute of

limitations.

Case No: 3:11cv120/RV/EMT

Case 3:11-cv-00120-RV-EMT Document 9 Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this cause be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the clerk be

directed to close the file.

 At Pensacola, Florida, this 28 day of June 2011. th

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the

electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of any

objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of

appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 3:11cv120/RV/EMT

Case 3:11-cv-00120-RV-EMT Document 9 Filed 06/28/11 Page 3 of 3