United States District Court, D. Minnesota
GAMADA A. HUSSEIN, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM BARR, U.S. Attorney General, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and JOHN DOES, Defendants.
A. Hussein, P.O. Box 4128, Saint Paul, MN 55104, pro se
Voss, Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600,
Minneapolis, MN 55415, for defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
Gamada A. Hussein brought this action on February 7, 2019,
against the Attorney General, the United States Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its
Director, and unknown John Does. Hussein alleges that
government actors have been causing him harm for years by
various methods – surveillance, poison, radiation,
carcinogens, and implanted microchips.
before the Court is a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate
Judge Hildy Bowbeer on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Because the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction for
certain claims, and that Hussein has failed to state a claim
as to the remainder, the Court will overrule Hussein’s
Objections and deny his Motion, adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R, grant Defendants’ Motion, and
impose restrictions on Hussein’s future filings.
alleges that he is the victim of persecution and torture at
the hands of a variety of government actors. (Compl.
¶¶ 19-20, Feb. 7, 2019, Docket 1.) In his lengthy
complaint, Hussein alleges that undercover government agents
tracked him and interfered in his personal life (see,
e.g., Id . ¶¶ 24-31); that coworkers attempted
to poison him and inject him with pathogens (id.
¶¶ 58, 60, 65); that he was subjected to radiation
and assassination attempts (id. ¶¶66, 77);
and other harms. These facts are set out in greater detail in
the R&R in this case, as well as the R&R and Order in
Hussein’s prior case in this District.
brought his first complaint alleging harmful government
intrusions in March 2016 in a case captioned Hussein v.
Sessions et al. (“Hussein I”).
(Compl. at 1, 16-cv-780 (SNR/SER), Mar. 28, 2016,
Docket No. 1.) In Hussein I, the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim. Hussein I, 2017 WL 8947249
(D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2017). The District Court dismissed the
case without prejudice on May 10, 2017. Hussein I,
2017 WL 1954767 (D. Minn. May 10, 2017). Hussein appealed to
the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. Hussein
v. Sessions, 715 F.App'x 585, 586 (8th
Cir. 2018). On January 7, 2019, the Supreme Court denied
certiorari. Hussein v. Whitaker, 139 S.Ct. 832
month after the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Hussein
filed the present complaint. (Compl. at 1, Feb. 7, 2019,
Docket 1.) The allegations in this case are substantially
similar to those in Hussein I. The first 11 causes
of action are essentially identical to the causes of action
in Hussein I, but Hussein has also added four new
counts. Compare (Hussein I, Second Am.
Compl. ¶¶108-172, Docket No. 1 with Compl.
¶¶ 137-221.) Defendants moved to dismiss on March
22, 2019. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, Mar. 22, 2019,
Docket No. 11.) Hussein filed his response to
Defendants’ motion on April 2, 2019. (Opp’n. to
Mot., Apr. 2, 2019, Docket No. 21.)
Magistrate Judge issued an R&R and recommended dismissal
of Hussein’s claims for lack of jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim. (R&R at 13, 16-18, July 31,
2019, Docket No. 30.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended
that the Court impose restrictions on any future filings by
Hussein. (Id. at 18-20.) Hussein filed objections to
the R&R on August 6, 2019. (Obj., Aug. 6, 2019, Docket
No. 31.) On August 12, Hussein filed additional papers
purporting to be a “Motion for Emergency Preliminary
Injunction and Memorandum in Support.” (Motion, Aug.
12, 2019, Docket No. 32.) The Court construes this filing as
additional objections to the R&R. The Court now reviews
Hussein’s combined objections.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, “a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). However, “[o]bjections which are
not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and
considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo
review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.”
Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d
1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015).