1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 TRAVIS WALKER, Case No. 25-cv-09903-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE;
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. 12 Re: Dkt. No. 9 13
14 On November 18, 2025, plaintiff Travis Walker, who is representing himself, filed a 15 complaint against the United States of America, asserting claims for negligence, intentional 16 infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy under the Federal Tort Claims Act 17 (“FTCA”). Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Walker also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 18 Dkt. No. 2. On December 3, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Walker’s IFP application but found his 19 complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Dkt. No. 6. The Court gave Mr. Walker an opportunity 20 to amend his complaint. Id. On December 12, 2025, Mr. Walker filed an amended complaint, 21 asserting a single claim for negligence under the FTCA.1 Dkt. No. 9. 22 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Mr. Walker’s amended complaint 23 fails to state a claim under federal law and is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). As 24 not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the 25 Court requests this case be reassigned to a district judge for disposition. The Court further 26 1 On December 11, 2025, Mr. Walker filed a first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 7. On December 27 12, 2025, he re-filed his first amended complaint with the note “with signature.” Dkt. No. 9. As 1 recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 I. MR. WALKER’S AMENDED CLAIMS 4 In his amended complaint, Mr. Walker asserts one claim for negligence against the United 5 States of America under the FTCA. Dkt. No. 1. The factual allegations in the amended complaint 6 do not differ significantly from those of the original complaint. Compare Dkt. No. 1 with Dkt. 7 No. 9. As in the original complaint, Mr. Walker’s principal contention is that he has been 8 subjected to a “continuing pattern of [s]urveillance” by federal agents. Dkt. No. 9 ¶ 14. In the 9 amended complaint Mr. Walker elaborates on this contention, alleging that he “observed a 10 surveillance van parked in front of his residence” on November 30, 2024, March 23, 2025, June 11 17, 2025, June 19, 2025, and October 24, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10-14. Mr. Walker alleges he observed a 12 white van and a gray van. Id. ¶¶ 10, 13. 13 Mr. Walker alleges that he submitted a “Standard Form 95 (SF-95) administrative claim” 14 to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the FBI, and that they failed to resolve his claim 15 within six months. Id. ¶ 15. He further states that “in response to his Freedom Of Information Act 16 Privacy Act (FOIPA) request,” the DOJ and the FBI said that “they could not identify records 17 responsive to [p]laintiff’s request.” Id. ¶ 16. 18 Mr. Walker alleges that he has suffered “stress, anxiety, and related physical symptoms 19 arising from past and continuing surveillance activities.” Id. ¶ 17. Under the FTCA, Mr. Walker 20 asserts one claim for negligence and seeks damages in the amount of $18 million. Id. ¶¶ 18-22. 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a complaint does not state a claim if it fails 23 to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 24 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint must include 25 facts that are “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s 26 elements will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. 27 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement 1 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 2 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible if 3 the facts pled permit the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 4 alleged misconduct. Id. As a threshold matter, the Court must examine whether it has jurisdiction 5 over the claims alleged before considering whether the complaint states any claims on which relief 6 may be granted. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 7 (2007) (“[A] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining 8 that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the 9 parties (personal jurisdiction).”). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 The FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, provides that district courts have exclusive 12 jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States for which it has waived sovereign 13 immunity and rendered itself liable for tort claims “in the same manner and to the same extent as a 14 private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Cognizable claims under the 15 FTCA are ones that are: (1) against the United States; (2) for money damages; (3) for injury or 16 loss of property; (4) caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the 17 government; (5) while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment; (6) under 18 circumstances in which the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in 19 accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 20 The FTCA expressly bars claims “arising out of” enumerated intentional torts, including assault, 21 battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, among others. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2680(h). 23 The amended complaint relies on the same allegations as those in the original complaint, as 24 well as additional allegations identifying the dates and times on which Mr. Walker observed a van 25 outside his residence. See Dkt. No. 9 ¶¶ 10-14. The Court concludes that the amended complaint 26 does not plausibly state a claim for relief for negligence under the FTCA. Mr. Walker alleges that 27 “[d]efendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care,” “breached that duty through negligent and wrongful 1 damages as aresult.” Jd. J] 18-21. However, these allegations are conclusory, as they merely 2 || recite the elements of the cause of action. The amended complaint contains no factual allegations 3 || plausibly supporting Mr. Walker’s assertion that federal agents owed him a duty of care and 4 || breached that duty by subjecting him to a “continuing pattern of [s]urveillance.” See Iqbal, 556 5 || US.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 TRAVIS WALKER, Case No. 25-cv-09903-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE;
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. 12 Re: Dkt. No. 9 13
14 On November 18, 2025, plaintiff Travis Walker, who is representing himself, filed a 15 complaint against the United States of America, asserting claims for negligence, intentional 16 infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy under the Federal Tort Claims Act 17 (“FTCA”). Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Walker also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 18 Dkt. No. 2. On December 3, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Walker’s IFP application but found his 19 complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Dkt. No. 6. The Court gave Mr. Walker an opportunity 20 to amend his complaint. Id. On December 12, 2025, Mr. Walker filed an amended complaint, 21 asserting a single claim for negligence under the FTCA.1 Dkt. No. 9. 22 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Mr. Walker’s amended complaint 23 fails to state a claim under federal law and is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). As 24 not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the 25 Court requests this case be reassigned to a district judge for disposition. The Court further 26 1 On December 11, 2025, Mr. Walker filed a first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 7. On December 27 12, 2025, he re-filed his first amended complaint with the note “with signature.” Dkt. No. 9. As 1 recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 I. MR. WALKER’S AMENDED CLAIMS 4 In his amended complaint, Mr. Walker asserts one claim for negligence against the United 5 States of America under the FTCA. Dkt. No. 1. The factual allegations in the amended complaint 6 do not differ significantly from those of the original complaint. Compare Dkt. No. 1 with Dkt. 7 No. 9. As in the original complaint, Mr. Walker’s principal contention is that he has been 8 subjected to a “continuing pattern of [s]urveillance” by federal agents. Dkt. No. 9 ¶ 14. In the 9 amended complaint Mr. Walker elaborates on this contention, alleging that he “observed a 10 surveillance van parked in front of his residence” on November 30, 2024, March 23, 2025, June 11 17, 2025, June 19, 2025, and October 24, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10-14. Mr. Walker alleges he observed a 12 white van and a gray van. Id. ¶¶ 10, 13. 13 Mr. Walker alleges that he submitted a “Standard Form 95 (SF-95) administrative claim” 14 to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the FBI, and that they failed to resolve his claim 15 within six months. Id. ¶ 15. He further states that “in response to his Freedom Of Information Act 16 Privacy Act (FOIPA) request,” the DOJ and the FBI said that “they could not identify records 17 responsive to [p]laintiff’s request.” Id. ¶ 16. 18 Mr. Walker alleges that he has suffered “stress, anxiety, and related physical symptoms 19 arising from past and continuing surveillance activities.” Id. ¶ 17. Under the FTCA, Mr. Walker 20 asserts one claim for negligence and seeks damages in the amount of $18 million. Id. ¶¶ 18-22. 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a complaint does not state a claim if it fails 23 to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 24 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint must include 25 facts that are “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s 26 elements will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. 27 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement 1 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 2 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible if 3 the facts pled permit the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 4 alleged misconduct. Id. As a threshold matter, the Court must examine whether it has jurisdiction 5 over the claims alleged before considering whether the complaint states any claims on which relief 6 may be granted. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 7 (2007) (“[A] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining 8 that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the 9 parties (personal jurisdiction).”). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 The FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, provides that district courts have exclusive 12 jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States for which it has waived sovereign 13 immunity and rendered itself liable for tort claims “in the same manner and to the same extent as a 14 private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Cognizable claims under the 15 FTCA are ones that are: (1) against the United States; (2) for money damages; (3) for injury or 16 loss of property; (4) caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the 17 government; (5) while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment; (6) under 18 circumstances in which the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in 19 accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 20 The FTCA expressly bars claims “arising out of” enumerated intentional torts, including assault, 21 battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, among others. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2680(h). 23 The amended complaint relies on the same allegations as those in the original complaint, as 24 well as additional allegations identifying the dates and times on which Mr. Walker observed a van 25 outside his residence. See Dkt. No. 9 ¶¶ 10-14. The Court concludes that the amended complaint 26 does not plausibly state a claim for relief for negligence under the FTCA. Mr. Walker alleges that 27 “[d]efendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care,” “breached that duty through negligent and wrongful 1 damages as aresult.” Jd. J] 18-21. However, these allegations are conclusory, as they merely 2 || recite the elements of the cause of action. The amended complaint contains no factual allegations 3 || plausibly supporting Mr. Walker’s assertion that federal agents owed him a duty of care and 4 || breached that duty by subjecting him to a “continuing pattern of [s]urveillance.” See Iqbal, 556 5 || US. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 6 conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). 7 Accordingly, the amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. 8 || IV. CONCLUSION 9 Mr. Walker has already been given one opportunity to amend his complaint. In addition, 10 || he was previously advised that “if the amended complaint fails to cure the defects described in [the 11 December 3, 2025 screening order], the Court may issue an order reassigning the case to a district 12 || judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for 13 || relief.” Dkt. No. 6 at 5. As discussed above, the allegations in the amended complaint fail to state 14 a plausible claim for relief, and the Court finds no basis to conclude that there are additional facts 3 15 that could be alleged on a further amendment to cure the deficiencies identified above. a 16 || Accordingly, the Court recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without further 3 17 leave to amend. 18 Because not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, it is ordered that 19 this case be reassigned to a district judge. 20 Any party may serve and file objections to this report and recommendation within 14 days 21 after being served. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Civil L.R. 72-3. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 23, 2025 24 «oe 25 Varsvia®, LaMarche: Virginia K. DeMarchi 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28