Jean-Baptiste v. United States Department of Justice ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-1054 (TSC)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )
OF JUSTICE, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Harold Jean-Baptiste brings this action against the United States Department
of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States Merrick Garland, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”), FBI Director Christopher Wray, and the Civil Process Clerk for the U.S.
Attorney’s Office. He alleges that unidentified FBI agents blocked him from executing unspecified
securities trades on E*TRADE. For the reasons that follow, the court will dismiss this action sua
sponte.
Plaintiff claims that “E*TRADE was instructed by the FBI Special Agent to restrict [his]
account, block all investment trades, block the removal of funds and instruct the plaintiff to provide a
gas utility bill to remove the restriction on the account.” Am. Compl., ECF No. 3 at 8. He further
claims to have had a conversation with an E*TRADE Assistant on April 6, 2023, during which the
employee explained that Plaintiff would not be able to “transfer the funds” until a “restriction” is
“resolved,” but E*TRADE is “working on getting the documents reviewed to remove the restriction.”
Page 1 of 3
Id. at 10. Over the course of the conversation, Plaintiff was repeatedly told that he would be able to
transfer funds once he provided a “Letter of Instruction” explaining “why the bank returned the
funds.” Id. at 11–13. At no point in the call did the E*TRADE representative mention the FBI or
any other government actor.
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the FBI rely on his own unsubstantiated hypotheses about
why he is unable to transfer funds from his E*TRADE account. He has made no factual allegation
regarding any FBI actions or any other government action. Instead, he concludes, without any factual
basis, that the restriction placed on his E*TRADE account is the result of covert action by the FBI.
He claims that “[t]he [FBI’s] strategy is to punish the plaintiff with their illegal actions or egregious
actions to oppress the plaintiff’s life for suing the FBI for attempts to destroy the plaintiff’s life.” Id.
at 17.
He further alleges—again without any factual support—that the FBI to “unfairly target[ed]”
him because of “his race, color, national origin, or malicious intentions.” Id. at 18.
Plaintiff cites to at least twenty or more statutes and the Fourth and Ninth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, but he does not explain the relevance of these citations. He seeks $2 million in
punitive damages.
Ultimately, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding a federal government conspiracy to block him
from executing securities trades and transferring funds from his brokerage account in retaliation for
filing suit against the government is “similar to those in a number of cases that district courts have
dismissed for patent insubstantiality.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
(citing Curran v. Holder, 626 F. Supp. 2d 30, 33–34 (D.D.C. 2009) (plaintiff alleged a “campaign or
surveillance and harassment” from the FBI)). While pro se complaints must be construed liberally,
Page 2 of 3
see Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008), they are nonetheless
properly dismissed sua sponte when the claims are “patently frivolous,” Reiner v. Roberts, No. 20-
cv-31, 2020 WL 7690275, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2020).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
When the claim “present[s] no federal question suitable for decision,” the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Here, because Plaintiff’s claims do not
present a federal question, the court invokes Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the Complaint. See Curran,
626 F. Supp. 2d at 33 (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint because his “claims relating to alleged
government surveillance and harassment are the type of ‘bizarre conspiracy theory’ that warrant
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) (quoting Richards v. Duke Univ., 480 F. Supp. 2d 222, 232 (D.D.C.
2007))); Bickford v. Gov’t of U.S., 808 F. Supp. 2d 175, 181–82 (D.D.C. 2011) (dismissing plaintiff’s
“government torture, surveillance, and harassment” claims under Rule 12(b)(1)).
Accordingly, this court will dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. An Order of Dismissal
will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: May 31, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3