Dhakal v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 28, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2056
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SASWOT DHAKAL, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:24-cv-02056-TNM FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Saswot Dhakal alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been stalking,

harassing, and intimidating him for nearly a decade. Compl., ECF No. 1; Pl. Opp. Mot. Dismiss,

ECF No. 22. His examples range from “cracking [the] windshield of [his] car and growing it

every time [he] was having a bad day” to accusing “agents” of “flourish[ing]” a “situation” that

“led to his [stepfather’s] untimely death” by heart attack. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. He also alleges

that the FBI has sent officers to his job, stationed detectives at job interviews, and stalked his

online activities. Id. at 2. Dhakal requests just over $500 billion in compensation because he

alleges the FBI’s campaign against him has ruined his health, finances, family, and career

prospects. Id. at 5; Pl Mot. Injunction, ECF No. 24 at 2. He also has asked for an emergency

injunction to require the FBI to pay him $500,000 while the case is pending. Pl. Mot. Injunction,

ECF No. 24. Dhakal acknowledges that he is making an “unusual and justified” request. Id. at

1. The Government, meanwhile, moves for dismissal. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20. These

motions are ripe for consideration.

“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is not plausible. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Courts cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such

a complaint. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (cleaned up). So a court must

dismiss a complaint “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Notwithstanding the generous standards afforded pro se plaintiffs, see Yellen v. U.S.

Bank, Nat’l Assn., 301 F. Supp. 3d 43, 46-47 (D.D.C. 2018), Dhakal’s Complaint fails to justify

Article III jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit approved dismissing a complaint on jurisdictional

grounds when it similarly alleged that the Government had launched a “massive surveillance

program” over the plaintiff, including using “tracking devices” on his car. See Tooley v.

Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009). That court also approved of dismissing a

complaint for lack of jurisdiction when it alleged government harassment “from uncertain

origins” that may have included a “long past employment by the FBI.” Id. So too here. The

Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. 1

A separate Order will issue.

2025.02.28 16:13:48 -05'00' ______________________

TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge DATE: February 28, 2025

1 Granting the Motion to Dismiss renders Dhakal’s Emergency Motion for Injunction moot.