New Alliance Party v. FBI, 93 Civ 3490 (CBM).

• Decision Date: 28 July 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93 Civ 3490 (CBM).,93 Civ 3490 (CBM).
• Parties: NEW ALLIANCE PARTY, Dr. Lenora B. Fulani, Dr. Fred Newman and Dr. Rafael Mendez, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Louis F. Freeh, as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James M. Fox, as Acting Director in Charge of the FBI New York Division, and Janet Reno, as United States Attorney General, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

858 F. Supp. 425

NEW ALLIANCE PARTY, Dr. Lenora B. Fulani, Dr. Fred Newman and Dr. Rafael Mendez, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Louis F. Freeh, as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James M. Fox, as Acting Director in Charge of the FBI New York Division, and Janet Reno, as United States Attorney General, Defendants.

No. 93 Civ 3490 (CBM).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

July 28, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Arthur Block, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Mary Jo White, U.S. Atty. for the So. Dist. of New York by Robert W. Sadowski, New York City, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MOTLEY, District Judge.

FACTS

Plaintiff New Alliance Party ("NAP") is a national political party whose candidates have sought elective office in several local and statewide campaigns since its founding in 1979. The party gained national prominence when Dr. Lenora Fulani, a founding member, launched presidential campaigns in 1984, 1988 and 1992. During her 1988 and 1992 campaigns, Dr. Fulani became the first African-American woman to appear on the ballot in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. She was also the first member of any party qualified by the Federal Election Commission ("FEC"), ranking first in the number of Americans who contributed to her campaign. Comp. ¶ 9; Ex. B to Defendant's Notice of Motion ("FBI Motion").

Three years after the 1988 presidential campaign, NAP requested copies of documents from the FBI's investigative file under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). At that time, plaintiffs learned of an FBI investigation of NAP's activities initiated "in the very month that the FEC certified Dr. Fulani for primary matching funds for her 1988 race." Comp. ¶ 9; FBI Motion, Ex. B. Since learning of the investigation, NAP has received several internal FBI documents summarizing NAP's activities and its public profile. Ex. A to the Declaration of Arthur R. Block dated March 28, 1994 ("Block Decl. II").

The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that the FBI characterized NAP as a "political cult" whose members are "armed and dangerous" and undertook to investigate NAP believing it to be a cult. The FBI initiated a preliminary investigation of NAP in 1988, after receiving a communication from its Phoenix field office that a "confidential source ... alleged that certain members of NAP had access to weapons and that some individuals advocated robbing banks and killing police officers." Ex. A to the Declaration of Mark V. Rich dated September 14, 1993 ("Rich Decl."). After conducting a four-month investigation, the FBI concluded that this information could not be corroborated and the investigation was ended. Id.

On May 16, 1988, the New York Field Office transmitted a report to FBI headquarters summarizing the results of the four-month investigation. The report concluded that "no further information has been developed which characterizes NAP as none other than a political/cult organization using social outreach to recruit support." Comp. ¶ 2. Ex. R to the Declaration of Arthur R. Block dated August 30, 1993 ("Block Decl. I").

The FBI claims that it has not investigated NAP's activities since the 1988 investigation ended. Rich Decl., Ex. A. However, NAP disputes their claim, alleging that "in July 1991, the FBI's Indianapolis, Indiana field office initiated an investigation of NAP based solely upon protected First Amendment activities of Dr. Fulani and other NAP members." Comp. ¶ 27. The evidence shows that the FBI responded to an inquiry from its Indianapolis Field Office ("FBI Indianapolis") concerning NAP's activities after that office received a newspaper article describing the party's affiliation with M-19, a Columbian political party formerly engaged in terrorist activities. Block Decl. II., Ex. B.

The FBI responded to the inquiry by sending FBI Indianapolis a copy of two newspaper articles on NAP obtained from its files. The FBI also summarized the 1988 investigation as follows:

FBI PHOENIX INITIATED A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY ON THE NAP IN JANUARY, 1988, WHEN A SOURCE OF UNKNOWN RELIABILITY ALLEGED THAT THIS GROUP WAS INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES THAT ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE, TO INCLUDE FORCE OR VIOLENCE. MEMBERS OF THE NAP SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS AS THEY ARE KNOWN TO POSSESS WEAPONS. THIS INQUIRY WAS CLOSED ON APRIL 7, 1988, DUE TO THE FACT THAT NO AND/OR INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION WAS DEVELOPED PERTAINING TO THE NAP OR ITS MEMBERS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE'S ALLEGATIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED CONTINUING THE INVESTIGATION UNDER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES. Block Decl. II, Ex. B.

Finally, the FBI requested that FBI Indianapolis "remain in contact with deleted under FOIA for any information" that NAP and M-19 might be planning "forceful and/or violent acts in the United States to overthrow the government." Block Decl. II, Ex. B. After receiving this response, FBI Indianapolis "concluded that no investigation was warranted, and none was conducted." Rich Decl., Ex. A.

Plaintiffs have requested a declaratory judgment declaring that "defendants' description of a group of persons as a `cult,' or its use of such a description as the predicate or justification for investigative activities, use of force, criminal prosecution, or governmental regulation is a violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States." Comp. ¶ 1. In response, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that: (1) this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Fed.R.Civ.P.; and (2) plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Fed.R.Civ.P.

After hearing defendants' motion, by order dated November 17, 1993, the court converted defendants' motion to a motion for summary judgment. Subsequent to that order, the court heard oral argument on the motion and considered additional affidavits and evidence submitted by the parties.

Based on the pleadings submitted and the evidence presented by both parties, this court finds that defendants are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to find constitutional standing on plaintiffs' part to bring this action. The injuries alleged in the complaint are not specific enough to meet the constitutional standard set by the Supreme Court in Laird v. Tatum and its progeny. Plaintiffs' have failed to trace their alleged injuries directly to the FBI investigation and the "cult" characterization. Moreover, the relief which plaintiffs seek goes far beyond the scope of the injuries allegedly sustained.

DISCUSSION

Standards for Summary Judgment

It is well-established in the Second Circuit that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is addressed to the face of the pleadings. See, Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir.1985). Upon receiving a 12(b)(6) motion, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may convert the motion to one for summary judgment and afford all parties the opportunity to present supporting evidence. Fonte v. Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condo., 848 F.2d 24, 25 (2d Cir.1988).

A court may grant summary judgment only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The essential inquiry in considering a motion for summary judgment is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so "one-sided" that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511-12, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-15 (1986). Plaintiffs may not defeat defendants' summary judgment motion by merely offering a "scintilla of evidence" as to their alleged injury. They must present evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find in their favor. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d at 214-15. Additionally, plaintiffs may not file a complaint in this court without having made a reasonable investigation of the facts. Fed. R.Civ.P. 11.

Constitutional Standing

Defendants assert that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this cause of action. According to defendants, plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete harm that is recognizable by the court nor have they shown that their alleged injuries are directly traceable to the FBI investigation. As a result, plaintiffs have failed to assert facts which entitle them to the relief which they seek.

Article III of the United States Constitution restricts federal court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." To bring a case in federal court, the complainant must have standing, or show that "she has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury" resulting from the action of which she has complained. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58, 70 L.Ed.2d 700, 709 (1982); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937).

In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has identified three elements that are necessary to find constitutional standing: (1) the plaintiff must prove that she has suffered some actual or threatened injury; (2) the injury must be specifically traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the remedy sought must redress her injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2142, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 1607-08, 60 L.Ed.2d 66, 89 (1979); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 48 L.Ed.2d 450, 460 (1976). After carefully reviewing the complaint, the supporting memoranda and the affidavits submitted by the parties, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing the elements necessary to find constitutional...