Corsi v. Mueller

• Decision Date: 31 October 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-02885 (ESH)
• Citation: 422 F.Supp.3d 51
• Parties: Jerome CORSI, Plaintiff, v. Robert MUELLER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

422 F.Supp.3d 51

Jerome CORSI, Plaintiff,

v.Robert MUELLER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-02885 (ESH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed October 31, 2019

Larry E. Klayman, Klayman Law Group, P.A., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Elizabeth Murray Tulis, Laura Katherine Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Eric J. Feder, Laura Rose Handman, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN S. HUVELLE, United States District Judge

PlaintiffJerome Corsi brings this action against the Department of Justice; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the National Security Agency; the Central Intelligence Agency(collectively, "the government"); and Robert Mueller, in both his individual capacity and his official capacity as Special Counsel.Before the Court are defendants' three motions to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in order to add a First Amendment retaliation count against Mueller in his personal capacity.For the reasons stated herein, the motions to dismiss will be granted, and the motion to file a second amended complaint will be denied.

BACKGROUND

I.FACTS

According to the amended complaint, Corsi is an "investigative conservative journalist and author,""a strong supporter of President Trump," and has researched Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to conduct government business while Secretary of State.(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15–16, 27, ECF No. 15.)The amended complaint alleges that Corsi's research and political affiliations prompted the government and Mueller, then-Special Counsel, to attempt "to coerce, extort, threaten and/or blackmail Plaintiff Corsi into testifying falsely" before the grand jury convened to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.(Id.¶¶ 20–22.)Specifically, Corsi claims that "Defendant Mueller and his prosecutorial staff" sought to force Corsi to testify before the grand jury that Corsi "acted as a liaison between Roger Stone and Wikileaks leader Julian Assange concerning the public release of emails obtained from the DNC's servers."(Id.¶ 23.)Corsi allegedly told Mueller that the desired testimony would be false.(Id.¶ 22.)Corsi claims that, despite this, "Defendant Mueller ... threatened to indict Plaintiff Corsi and effectively put him in federal prison for the rest of his life" if he did not provide the testimony Mueller wanted.(Id.¶ 22.)

Corsi further alleges that "Mueller and his staff have leaked grand jury information to the press concerning Plaintiff Corsi."(Id.¶ 25.)Corsi cites two news articles that, he alleges, "contain[ ] confidential information regarding the grand jury proceedings about Plaintiff Corsi that could only possibly have come from Defendant Mueller."(Id.¶ 26;see alsoid.¶¶ 26 n.3, 28 n.4.)Corsi also claims that the government and Mueller "have engaged in ongoing illegal, unconstitutional surveillance on Plaintiff Corsi ... at the direction of Defendant Mueller."(Id.¶ 30.)To support this, he alleges that (1) the government "[n]ecessarily" discovered the identity of his stepson by "intercepting [his] text and other messages;"(2) by using a software that "prevent[s] the electronic surveillance of telephone conversations,"he"has evidence of repeated attempts by government authorities to intercept electronically [his] telephone conversations;" and (3)he"routinely speaks with persons located overseas in regions that are surveilled under PRISM."¹(Id.¶¶ 31, 33.)Finally, he claims that the government and Mueller interfered with his business relationships with his book publisher (Post Hill Press) and his book seller (Amazon), by threatening them with subpoenas or other legal action, and with Dr. David Jones, Alex Jones, and InfoWars, by falsely claiming that they were "paying him hush money to keep him quiet about their actions."(Id.¶¶ 60–63.)

Despite the alleged pressure put on him by defendants, Corsi states that he testified truthfully before the grand jury.(Seeid.¶ 29;see alsoPl.'s Opp'n to Mueller'sMot. at 2, ECF No. 40("Plaintiff Corsi chose to exercise his First Amendment(and moral) right to give a truthful account of the events of the Russian collusion investigation.").)And although he alleges that Mueller threatened to indict him, he has never been indicted.(Hr'gTr. at 35:4–35:5, Oct. 2, 2019, ECF No. 58("Tr.").)Moreover, Mueller's investigation concluded on March 22, 2019, the grand jury has been dismissed, and Mueller has resigned as Special Counsel.(SeePl.'s Opp'n to Mueller's Mot.at 4;Mueller's Mot. to Dismissat 2, ECF No. 27("Mueller's Mot.").)

II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Corsi initiated this action on December 9, 2018, against the government and Mueller.On January 21, 2019, he filed an amended complaint, three defendants—Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post , and a Washington Post reporter.Count One alleges that Mueller and the government violated the Fourth AmendmentandSection 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,50 U.S.C. § 1881a, et. seq.("FISA"), as amended by the USA FREEDOM Act, by conducting illegal electronic surveillance of Corsi.(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 42–48.)He alleges that Mueller is personally liable for these violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619(1971), and he seeks "compensatory and actual damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, [and] post-interest and costs."(Id.¶¶ 47–48.)Count Two, brought only against Mueller, alleges a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2).(Id.¶¶ 49–53.)He specifically requests "preliminary injunctive relief as well as permanent injunctive relief."(Id.¶ 53.)Count Three charges Mueller and the government with abuse of process for their alleged attempts to coerce Corsi into falsely testifying.(Id.¶¶ 54–58.)Count Four alleges that all defendants tortuously interfered with Corsi's business relationships with his publisher, book distributor, David and Alex Jones, and InfoWars, for which he seeks damages.(Id.¶¶ 59–65.)Finally, Count Five asserts a defamation claim against Bezos, the Washington Post , and the Washington Post reporter, which alleges that the latter two defendants, at the direction of Bezos, made defamatory statements about Corsi "to various news and media outlets."(Id.¶¶ 66–72.)These statements, Corsi alleges, concerned the nature of payments he was receiving from Dr. David Jones, Alex Jones, and InfoWars.(Id.¶ 67.)Corsi claims that, as a result, he lost the $15,000 per month he was receiving from InfoWars and the Jonses.(Id.¶ 69.)

In his prayer for relief, Corsi seeks "equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief;" and general and punitive damages in excess of $1,600,000,000.(Notice of Errata, Ex. 1, ECFNo. 16-1(correcting amended complaint).)Since filing his amended complaint, Corsi has voluntarily dismissed Bezos, the Washington Post , and the Washington Post reporter.(Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 56.)Thus, Counts One through Four are the only remaining counts, and only the government and Mueller are named as defendants.

The government and Mueller have moved to dismiss Corsi's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).(See generallyGov't's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 22("Gov't's1st Mot.");Gov't's Mot. to Dismiss Counts III & IV, ECF No. 28("Gov't's2d Mot.");Mueller's Mot.)Mueller's motion includes a certification from the Attorney General's designee that certifies that Mueller was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time Corsi's claims arose.(Mueller's Mot., Ex.A.) On May 30, 2019, Corsi moved for leave to amend his complaint a second time, seeking to add a First Amendment retaliation claim against Mueller only.(See generallyPl.'s Mot. for Leave to File2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 41("Pl.'s Mot.").)Aside from the additional count, the proposed complaint is identical to the first amended complaint.

On October 2, 2019, the Court held a hearing, and it is now ready to rule on defendants' three motions to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

ANALYSIS

I.DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

A.Legal Standards

1.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Court must dismiss a claim when it "lack[s] ... subject-matter jurisdiction."The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists.SeeKhadr v. United States , 529 F.3d 1112, 1115(D.C. Cir.2008).Although the Court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the Court need not accept factual inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged in the complaint, nor is the Court required to accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions.Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin. , 402 F.3d 1249, 1253–54(D.C. Cir.2005)(citingUnited States v. Gaubert , 499 U.S. 315, 327, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335(1991) );Primax Recoveries, Inc. v. Lee , 260 F. Supp. 2d 43, 47(D.D.C.2003)(citing Nat'l Treasury Emps.Union v. United States , 101 F.3d 1423, 1430(D.C. Cir.1996) ).In determining whether the plaintiff has met his burden, the Court may consider materials outside of the pleadings.Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. , 402 F.3d at 1253(citingHerbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis. , 974 F.2d 192, 197(D.C. Cir.1992) ).

2.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5)

Under Rule 12(b)(5), which governs service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that he has properly effected service.SeeLight v. Wolf , 816 F.2d 746, 751(D.C. Cir.1987)."[H]e must demonstrate that the procedure employed satisfied the requirements of the relevant portions of Rule 4 and any other applicable provision of law."Id.(citations and internal...