Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hussein v. Barr

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

September 18, 2019

GAMADA A. HUSSEIN, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

          Gamada A. Hussein, P.O. Box 4128, Saint Paul, MN 55104, pro se plaintiff.

          Ana H 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

          JOHN R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         Presently 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.

         Background

         Hussein 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.

         Hussein 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 (2019).

         One 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.)

         The 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.

         DISCUSSION

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Upon 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).

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.