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.

Galaviz v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

January 14, 2020

RYAN ANTHONY GALAVIZ, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

          JAMES L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the court is Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation's (“the FBI”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Ryan Anthony Galaviz's complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (MTD (Dkt. # 4); see also Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1); Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 5-1).) Mr. Galaviz did not file an opposition to the FBI's motion. (See generally Dkt.) The court has considered the FBI's motion, all submissions filed in support of the FBI's motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, [1] the court GRANTS the FBI's motion and DISMISSES Mr. Galaviz's claims with prejudice and without leave to amend.

         II. BACKGRUOND

         On August 23, 2019, Mr. Galaviz filed a pro se notice of small claim in King County District Court against the FBI. (See Compl.) Mr. Galaviz's initial claim sought $5, 000.00 and indicated that the “amount owed” was for “[f]aulty [w]orkmanship, ” “[p]roperty [d]amage, ” and “[o]ther.” (Id. at 2.) In response to a prompt on the notice of small claim form to “[e]xplain reason for claim, ” Mr. Galaviz stated:

This has been an ongoing issue where I've incurred various losses, especially as it pertains to time because of the lack of regulatory oversight in relation to military technologies and law enforcement. There was Autonomous weapon systems, AGI Nanotechnology (nanites) used on me in various ways to cause not only functional issues as it pertains to motor-sensory function but, also when it comes to the physical assets functionality itself. Nanotechnology has been used on my vehicle to cause performance issues which sometimes resulted in job loss & endangered my life while operating a motor vehicle.

(Id.)

         On September 23, 2019, Mr. Galaviz filed an amended notice of small claim in King County District Court seeking $10, 000.00 in damages. (See Am. Compl.) In his amended claim, Mr. Galaviz states that the “amount owed” is for “[a]uto-[d]amages, ” “[w]ages, ” “[p]roperty [d]amages, ” and “[o]ther.” (Id. at 2.) Following the prompt on the form to “[e]xplain reason for claim, ” Mr. Galaviz states:

There has been so many attempts on my personal life periodically via attacking my current job performance my relational ties to jobs in general my mode of transportation that has affected my outcomes on many opportunities. This has been constantly going for some time and has made it very difficult to get anywhere occupation-wise because of this nanotechnological use on my valuables, many [writing unclear] of which includes damage to my vehicle by changing oil viscosity with nanotech, the fuel-intake value & overall combustion has been limited while I've needed transport to keep up with my expeditions, these have been lessened to reactively deal with this spite.

(Id.) Neither statement on Mr. Galaviz's initial claim or amended claim identifies the legal cause(s) of action under which Mr. Galaviz seeks to recover. (See id.; see also Compl. at 2.)

         On October 8, 2019, the FBI removed Mr. Galaviz's action to federal court. (See Notice of Removal (Dkt. # 1).) On October 15, 2019, the FBI filed the present motion to dismiss. (See MTD.) As noted above, Mr. Galaviz failed to file an opposition to the FBI's motion. (See generally Dkt.) The court now considers the FBI's motion.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. The FBI's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

         Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) when a plaintiff fails to allege “a cognizable legal theory” or when there is an “absence of sufficient facts alleged” to sustain that legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint is not sufficient if it tenders “‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Although the court is required on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to accept facts alleged in the complaint as true, the court is not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Further, although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, even a pro se plaintiff “must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claim.” Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation and citation ...


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.