Schneider v. Unknown named F.B.I. agent(s)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LUCAS CANTON SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN NAMED F.B.I. AGENTS,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00261-JMK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On 	November 	8, 	2023, 	Lucas 	Canton 	Schneider, 	a 	self-represented
prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”) against unknown agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigations, a civil cover sheet, and an application to waive
the filing fee.1 Plaintiff alleges his rights to “due process / deprivation of life” were
violated by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“F.B.I.”) between
October 20, 2023, and November 8, 2023.2 For relief, Plaintiff seeks an unknown
amount of damages, $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages, and an order requiring
defendants to “stop poisoning and harassing and reinstate [his] medical rights.”3
Plaintiff has subsequently filed nine motions.4 The Court screened the Complaint
1 Dockets 1–3.
2 Docket 1 at 3.
3 Docket 1 at 5.
4 Dockets 6–14.
Case 3:23-cv-00261-JMK Document 15 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 4

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and finds that it fails to state
any cognizable claims. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claims are not new to the federal courts. 	While the instant
Complaint 	includes 	allegations 	of 	recent 	harms 	incurred 	since 	Plaintiff 	was
released from prison, his claims all relate to the same theory of ongoing conspiracy
by unnamed individuals.5 The Court takes judicial notice of the previous lawsuits
filed by Plaintiff.6 As evidenced in his filings, Plaintiff believes that, among others,
the Federal Government, the Alaska Department of Corrections, doctors, lawyers,
and some taxi drivers, are involved in a conspiracy to subject him to chemical
exposure, poisoning, dental issues, freezing cold temperatures, theft, financial
abuse, and torture.7 In the instant case, Plaintiff names two unknown FBI agents.
However, throughout the filings, he includes allegations against individuals not
named as defendants, events not reasonably related to or involving the named
5 See, e.g., Schneider v. Winkelman, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-284-JMK, Docket 13
(denying Plaintiff’s motion to add unnamed federal authorities—allegedly involved in a
conspiracy to conduct medical experimentation, prevent him from accessing medical
care, and assist the state criminal courts in violating his rights—as defendants in his
case).
6 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
such a fact.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); a court can take judicial notice of
its own files and records. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
7 Dockets 1–12.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00261-JMK, Schneider v. Unknown Named F.B.I. Agents
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 4
Case 3:23-cv-00261-JMK Document 15 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 4

Defendants, and repeats meritless claims raised in previous cases. 	Plaintiff
continues to demonstrate an inability to follow the applicable federal and local rules
and the directions of the Court.
As 	the 	Court 	has 	previously 	explained, 	a 	plaintiff 	cannot 	bring 	a
Section 1983 claim against federal authorities.8 	Additionally, naming unknown
defendants—or the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant—generally is not
favored.9 Further, to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) he
has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.10
The Court has carefully reviewed all of Plaintiffs filings. 	Even liberally
construed, Plaintiff’s claims lack an arguable basis in law and fact. Plaintiff fails to
allege any facts supporting his conclusory allegations of a conspiracy; and overall,
his allegations are fanciful, exaggerated, and implausible.11 	Because Plaintiff
8 See Russell v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 191 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“Section 1983, however, provides no right of action against federal (rather than state)
officials.”).
9 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)
(requiring plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the action).
10 U.S. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.
11 Travaglia v. Johnston, 42 F.3d 1402 (9th Cir. 1994). See also Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (the term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not
only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”).
Case No. 3:23-cv-00261-JMK, Schneider v. Unknown Named F.B.I. Agents
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 4
Case 3:23-cv-00261-JMK Document 15 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 4

again fails to present viable claims for the Court’s adjudication, the Court finds
amendment would be futile.12 	Therefore, the Court will not grant leave to file an
amended complaint. 	Finally, as with Plaintiff’s past motions, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that either expedited relief or a temporary injunction from the Court
are warranted.13 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions at Dockets 6 and 8–14 are DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). Cf. McHenry v. Renne,
84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint may be dismissed under Rule 8 even if
the court can “identify a few possible claims.”).
13 See, e.g., Schneider v. Dahlstrom, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00170-RRB, Docket 10;
Schneider v. Britt, Case No. 3:22-cv-00283-JMK, Docket 15; Schneider v. Winkelman et
al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00284-JMK, Dockets 13, 24.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00261-JMK, Schneider v. Unknown Named F.B.I. Agents
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 4
Case 3:23-cv-00261-JMK Document 15 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 4