Bastian v. United States, 8:17CV309
Decision Date | 09 July 2018 |
Docket Number | 8:17CV309 |
Parties | CASEY J. BASTIAN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
Plaintiff Casey J. Bastian, a pro se litigant incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, filed this action regarding the alleged destruction and continued detention of his property seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in 2008 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. On January 29, 2018, the court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to establish that venue is proper in the District of Nebraska. (Filing No. 15.) After receiving two extensions of time (Filing Nos. 17, 20), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Filing No. 21) on June 20, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 22).
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In light of the liberal construction afforded to pro se litigants' pleadings, the court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the court's Memorandum and Order with regard to alleging proper venue. However, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains claims that cannot be asserted against all of the Defendants, as discussed below. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) ( ).
First, Plaintiff's Bivens1 claims may proceed only against Defendants Metz, Kitzmiller, Johnson, Reinwart, Grunder, and Unknown Members of the Computer Analysis Response Team in their individual capacities because Bivens actions are "only available against federal officers, not government entities." Hartje v. F.T.C.
, 106 F.3d 1406, 1408 (8th Cir. 1997) ( ); Schutterle v. United States, 74 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 1996) (same); see also
Olson v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1061 (D.N.D.), aff'd, 709 F. App'x 398 (8th Cir. 2017) ( ); Bradley v. Outlaw, No. 2:11CV00153, 2011 WL 6937186, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 30, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:11CV00153, 2012 WL 10665 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 3, 2012) ().
Second, Plaintiff's FTCA claim may proceed only against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Duncan v. Dep't of Labor,
313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002)
( ); Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210, 212-13 (8th Cir. 1996) (); Bradley, 2011 WL 6937186, at *2.
Finally, Plaintiff's claims under the Administrative Procedure Act2 ("APA")may proceed to service against Defendants United States of America; Attorney General of the United States; Federal Bureau of Investigation in D.C.; Federal Bureau of Investigation in Omaha, Nebraska; United States Attorney in Sioux City, Iowa; Office of Professional Responsibility; and Defendants Thomas Metz, Michael R. Kitzmiller, Kristi Johnson, Thomas Reinwart, and Eric S. Grunder in their official capacities. 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) (defining "agency"); 5 U.S.C. § 702 ( ); F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
(); Sabhari v. Reno, 197 F.3d 938, 943 (8th Cir. 1999) ( ); Ali v. Frazier, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1092 n.5 (D. Minn. 2008) ( ); Radack v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 402 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2005) ( ).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims under Bivens, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq. (Westlaw 2018), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (Westlaw 2018) based on Defendants' unlawful seizure, withholding, and purported destruction of his property in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments may proceed to service of process as to all Defendants. (Filing No. 21 at CM/ECF pp. 59-60 ( ).) Although the court finds that Plaintiff's claims may proceed to serviceof process against these Defendants, the court cautions Plaintiff that this is only a preliminary determination based on the allegations of the Amended Complaint and is not a determination of the merits of his claims or potential defenses thereto.
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 22) requests that the government be directed to preserve any electronic data in their possession "derived from FBI case number 305A-OM-51995, including any original or copies (forensic or otherwise) of said property," and to prohibit the government from "further destroying any non-contraband intermingled electronic data in their possession." (Filing No. 22 at CM/ECF p. 9 (Prayer for Relief).)
Rule 65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a TRO may issue without notice to the adverse party only if:
Because Plaintiff has not shown that he has made any effort to give notice to the adverse party, nor has he cited reasons why such notice should not be required, his motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied. Fryer v. Citimortgage, Inc.
, No. CIV. 09-3197, 2009 WL 3856724, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 17, 2009) ( )(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)).
Furthermore, citing the standards for preliminary injunctive relief set forth in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc.,
640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981)3, Plaintiff claims irreparable harm because Defendants might destroy the "non-contraband intermingled electronic data in their possession." (Filing No. 22 at CM/ECF p. 9.) That is, the suggested threat of harm is merely speculative. Failure to show irreparable harm alone is a sufficient basis for a court to deny injunctive relief. Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 420 (8th Cir. 1987) ().
In light of this, and in consideration of all of the factors, the court sees no reason to "intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined . . . ." Dataphase,
640 F.2d at 113. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order will be denied.
Service of Process
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 22) is denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's Bivens claims may proceed to service of process as to Defendants Thomas Metz, Michael R. Kitzmiller, Kristi Johnson, Thomas Reinwart, and Eric S. Grunder4; Plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act claim may proceed to service of process as to Defendant United States of America; and Plaintiff's claims under the Administrative Procedure Act may proceed to service of process as to Defendants United...
To continue reading
Request your trial