Raz v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 16 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1916.,03-1916. |
| Parties | Yoram RAZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Yoram Raz, pro se.
Charles E. Smith, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Fort Smith, AR, for appellee.
Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yoram Raz appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Raz, a former Israeli citizen, filed his fee-paid complaint against the United States, asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (FTCA). Raz alleged the FBI continues to engage in what has been a 15-year "campaign of Surveillance, Operations and harassment" against him based on his "expression of certain unpopular political opinions" about the Israeli-Arab conflict. According to Raz, FBI agents have placed monitoring stations near his residence; stalk him on a regular basis; issue "ALERTS" to local law-enforcement agencies so that he is immediately recognized wherever he goes; performed an illegal search of his Louisiana home in October 1998; tapped his telephones and planted electronic tracers in his car; have caused him to be ostracized by issuing "warnings" to stores and other businesses he frequents; initiated rumors throughout the community that Raz was a "spy" or "subversive element," which resulted in individuals breaking into his home, hog-tying him, and severely beating him; turned many of his acquaintances into spies working against him; conducted various "sting-operations" that were "extremely insulting and demeaning," whereby the FBI tried to accuse him of various crimes; and detained and interrogated him for about two hours in October 1998 when he walked into an FBI facility to file a complaint relating to the hog-tying incident. Raz further alleged the FBI's surveillance activities caused him "stress" and "severe deterioration of health and premature aging"; severely limited his "ability to make new acquaintances and destroyed forever relationships between friends"; interfered with his ability to re-marry and procreate as the ongoing surveillance scares away potential dates; made it nearly impossible to find employment; forced him to relocate several times; and caused him severe bodily injuries.
In October 2001, Raz filed an administrative claim with the FBI, which was denied on March 13, 2002. He brought this FTCA action on September 13, 2002. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss.
Having carefully reviewed the record and appellate briefs, we conclude the district court should not have dismissed Raz's fee-paid complaint for failure to state a claim. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (); Rucci v. City of Pacific, 327 F.3d 651, 652 (8th Cir.2003) (); Cousineau v. Norstan, Inc., 322 F.3d 493, 499 (8th Cir.2003) (); Michaelis v. CBS, Inc., 119 F.3d 697, 702 (8th Cir.1997) ().
Initially, we conclude that the portions of Raz's complaint based on events taking place more than two years prior to his October 2001 administrative claim are not time-barred, because Raz alleged the FBI continued to engage in surveillance activities up until and beyond the date he filed his suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (); Gross v. United States, 676 F.2d 295, 300 (8th Cir.1982) ().
Further, considering all of Raz's allegations, we conclude they are sufficient to state cognizable tort claims under Arkansas law. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 348 Ark. 707, 74 S.W.3d 634 644-45 (2002) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castro v. U.S.
...819 F.2d at 1293. This principle of law has been recognized by a majority of other circuits as well. See, e.g., Raz v. United States, 343 F.3d 945, 948 (8th Cir.2003) ("We must also conclude that the FBI's alleged surveillance activities fall outside the FTCA's discretionary-function except......
-
Galvin v. Hay
...proscribed by statute, or exceed the scope of an official's authority." (citing, inter alia, Nurse)); Raz v. United States, 343 F.3d 945, 948 (8th Cir.2003) (discretionary function exception does not apply because plaintiff alleged that conduct violated his constitutional rights); Medina v.......
- Hernandez v. Causey
-
C.M. v. United States
...... attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be. subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and. encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in. its national character, or from vast hordes of its people. crowding in upon us. . . 130 U.S. at 605-06. . . “The. Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power. over the subject of immigration and the status of. aliens.” Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012). ......
-
RECOVERING THE TORT REMEDY FOR FEDERAL OFFICIAL WRONGDOING.
...Galvin, 374 F.3d at 758; Thames Shipyard & Repair Co. v. United States, 350 F.3d 247, 254-55 (1st Cir. 2003); Raz v. United States, 343 F.3d 945, 948 (8th Cir. 2003); Medina, 259 F.3d at 225; Prisco v. Talty, 993 F.2d 21, 26 n.14 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Myers & Myers, Inc. v. U.S. ......
-
It's Time to Resolve the Circuit Split: Unconstitutional Actions by Federal Employees Should Not Fall Within the Scope of the Discretionary Function Exception of the Ftca
...226 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2000).74. Id. at 999-1000. 75. Id. at 1005.76. Id. at 1002.77. Id. at 1001.78. Id. at 1002.79. Id.80. Id.81. 343 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2003).82. Id. at 947.83. Id.84. Id. at 948. 85. Id.86. Id.87. 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009).88. Id. at 83.89. Id. at 86.90. Id. at 89.91. ......
-
Government Discretion Advised (even if It's Unconstitutional): How the Eleventh Circuit Has Expanded the United States's Immunity from Tort Suits
...v. United States, 828 F.3d 935, 938-39 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79, 102 (1st Cir. 2009); Raz v. United States, 343 F.3d 945, 948 (8th Cir. 2003).9. See Kiiskila v. United States, 466 F.2d 626, 628 (7th Cir. 1972).10. Shivers, 1 F.4th at 927.11. Id.12. Id. 13. Id.1......