(PC) Johnson v. Unknown FBI Agents

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01375
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN B. JOHNSON, No. 2:22-cv-1375 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 UNKNOWN F.B.I. AGENTS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff 18 claims that Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) officials violated his rights to equal 19 protection under the law. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for FBI accountability. 20 (ECF No. 50.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will deny the motion for FBI 21 accountability and direct plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be 22 dismissed for failure to prosecute. 23 I. Motion for FBI Accountability 24 Plaintiff states the FBI is denying him internet access. (ECF No. 50 at 1.) He states that 25 the FBI has done so “for racist and hateful reasons.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that his 26 internet access was removed without a hearing. Plaintiff accuses the FBI of fabricating crimes, 27 charging individuals with crimes that did not happen. (Id.) Additionally, he states that the FBI 28 //// 1 and the trial courts are creating mental health problems in inmates that did not have mental health 2 issues before going to jail. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff states that he would like his “.303 brit rifle back” and alleges the FBI stole it 4 from him in “a staged car accident.” (Id. at 2.) He further claims that he has been the target of a 5 “search and destroy mission.” (Id. at 3.) He states, “[t]he operation where the FBI uses all its 6 power and influence to commit defamation is not new and [he] cannot see how the Federal judges 7 don’t know of it.” (Id.) In support of his allegations, he cites an article titled “Racial and Ethnic 8 Disparities throughout the Criminal Legal System” written by the Urban Institute. (Id.) 9 Plaintiff states this court is a “bar from Due Process, fair and impartial, equal protection 10 under the law, 10th Amendment and a few others. Then you look at the Grand Jury then the 11 whole system is unconstitutional, very inconsistent with the Constitution. This whole system is 12 racial discrimination for the Black man. This is why 50.2% of the innocent prison population is 13 black and that’s a conservative number and most agree its much higher due to the unknown 14 cases.” (Id. at 5.) 15 As with prior motions filed by plaintiff, this motion does not contain a request for judicial 16 action and fails to cite any legal authority. Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the 17 allegations are not sufficiently clear for the undersigned to determine whether any relief is 18 warranted. Therefore, the undersigned will deny the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff is further 19 advised that to the extent his internet privileges and rifle were taken pursuant to court proceedings 20 the proper course of action it to pursue relief in those actions rather than in the instant case. 21 II. Failure to Serve Defendants 22 Plaintiff initiated this action on August 3, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, plaintiff 23 submitted filings indicating that he would move to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF 24 Nos. 6, 10, 14, 20, 21.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee on October 25, 2022. By order dated 25 December 27, 2022, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion for summons and directed the 26 Clerk of the Court to issue summons in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 4(m). (ECF No. 27.) 28 //// 1 On February 24, 2023, plaintiff filed a proof of service of summons stating the complaint 2 | and summons were served on a paralegal at the FBI office in Roseville, California. (ECF No. 35 3 | at 1.) Here, defendants identified by plaintiff as “unknown FBI agents” are required to be served 4 | pursuant to the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4G). Zuercher v. 5 | Hoskins, No. 4:21-cv-05142-YGR, 2021 WL 6551433, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021). Thus, 6 | plaintiffis required to “deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States 7 | attorney for the district where the action is brought—cr to an assistant United States attorney or 8 | clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court 9 | clerk—or send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the 10 | United States attorney’s office.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1). Accordingly, service on a paralegal is not 11 | effective. See Tuke v. United States, 76 F.3d 155, 156 (7th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff “must serve the 12 | United States in the way Rule 4 requires; actual notice is insufficient”). In light of plaintiffs pro 13 | se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiff with an opportunity to 14 || show good cause for plaintiff's conduct. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's motion for FBI accountability (ECF No. 50) is denied; 17 2. Plaintiff to show cause in writing within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order 18 | as to why defendants have not been served and why this case should not be dismissed for lack of 19 | prosecution; and 20 3. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this order may result in a 21 || recommendation that this case be dismissed. 22 | Dated: January 19, 2024

24 45 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 DB:12 28 || DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/john1375.fbi.4(m)