Howard v. Unknow Central Intelligence Agency Officer Officer et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXANDER DEVAUX HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY OFFICER OFFICER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-02596-JST
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE; DENYING REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Re: ECF No. 3
Plaintiff, an inmate at South Placer Jail, in Roseville, California, has filed a pro se Bivens
action against three unnamed Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) officers regarding events that
he alleges took place in Arcata and Benbow. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court
for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in a separate order.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims
that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d
989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
Case 4:26-cv-02596-JST Document 5 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).
While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).
A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.
All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s
claims lack an arguable basis in either law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal
conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit), as well
as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th
Cir. 1991). The Supreme Court has held that because 28 U.S.C. § 1915 gives courts the authority
to pierce the veil of a complaint’s factual allegations, a court is not bound to accept without
question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations in that a court may dismiss a claim as factually
frivolous when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or
not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
B. Complaint
The complaint sues three unnamed Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) officers. The
complaint sets forth three claims for relief.
The first claim alleges use of excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. On September 19, 2021, Plaintiff was invited to a bar for a
couple of days of partying. When he arrived, Defendants were dressed as Arcata Police
Department officers. Defendants knocked Plaintiff unconscious and stripped him naked in front a
couple of Plaintiff’s friends, approximately eight officers, and approximately twelve civilian
women. Plaintiff was ridiculed for being fat and for the length of his penis. Plaintiff was
subjected to a presentation of videos involving murder and mutilation, and to footage of himself in
Case 4:26-cv-02596-JST Document 5 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
his home that had been recorded by the SKYNET surveillance apparatus. Plaintiff was held and
tortured for sixteen days. On the final day, Plaintiff was stripped naked and sexually assaulted by
defendant CIA agent Doe No. 2, who had orchestrated the attack. Doe No. 2 threatened Plaintiff
with death if he returned to the county. Plaintiff did not suffer any physical damage, as the
Defendants’ intent was to invoke fear and compliance.
The second claim alleges illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Plaintiff alleges that while he was kidnapped, officers went through his email, his iPad’s search
history, and his cellphone, all without a warrant. Defendants exposed his private information for
entertainment and threatened him with violence. Doe No. 2 stripped him naked, threw cold water
on him, and attempted to antagonize Plaintiff by inferring that he was a homosexual. This ordeal
lasted for hours. Plaintiff did not suffer any physical damage, as Defendants’ intent was to
“impose [sic] fear and maximum suffering for [their] entertainment.”
The third claim alleges cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that defendant CIA agent Doe No. 2 subjected him to hours of
hypnosis against his will. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “affirm[ed his] sexual preferences” by
interrogating him about his sexual endeavors; refusing to allow him to be single; requiring to
choose and co-habitate with a partner, whether male or female; and refused to allow him to seek
companionship in exchange for money. To punish him for not following their rules, Defendants
“activated [him] to perform a heinous act as their proof power over [him].” Plaintiff was given a
final chance to save himself, which was to enroll in college and pursue a degree. Plaintiff enrolled
in college but did not attend. On January 26, 2025, Plaintiff was therefore activated to engage his
mother in mortal combat and murder her, and to attempt to murder his brother for interfering.
Plaintiff suffered a gash to his hand during his violent outburst, for which Defendants are
responsible.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief; that Defendants stand trial for the atrocious acts;
compensatory damages to pay the lawyers and investigators to win his case; and $8 million in
punitive damages for all that he had to endure.
Case 4:26-cv-02596-JST Document 5 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
C. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend
The Court DISMISSES the complaint because the facts alleged are fanciful and
implausible. Plaintiff’s claims allege that: (1) in 2021, three CIA officers have disguised
themselves as Arcata police officers; kidnapped, tortured, and held him for weeks; ridiculed him in
front of others; and searched through his email, text messages, and iPad; and (2) four years later,
interrogated him regarding his sexual preferences; placed restrictions on his sexual and romantic
activity; and forced him to kill his mother and attempt to kill his brother because he would not
attend college and get a degree. These factual allegations are far-fetched, irrational, and wholly
incredible. The Court therefore DISMISSES the complaint as factually frivolous. Denton, 504
U.S. at 32 (“a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
available to contradict them.”).
Notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring leave to amend for pro se plaintiffs, see Lucas
v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), the Court finds that amendment
would be futile and thus will not grant leave to amend.
D. Request for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3)
Plaintiff has requested that the Court appoint him counsel. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff argues
that appointment of counsel is necessary because he is unable to afford counsel; he has requested
leave to proceed in forma pauperis; his imprisonment greatly limits his ability to litigate; the
issues involved are complex and will require significant research and investigation; he has limited
access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law; a trial in this case will likely involve
conflicting testimony and counsel would be better able to present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses; and his efforts to secure legal representation have been unsuccessful. See generally
ECF No. 3. Because the Court has dismissed this case with prejudice, Plaintiff’s request for
counsel is now moot.
Even were the request not moot, however, it would be denied. There is no constitutional
right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses
the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Svcs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). A court “may request
Case 4:26-cv-02596-JST Document 5 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointing
counsel is within the court’s discretion and is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn
v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (referring to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which was
subsequently renumbered to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). A finding of “exceptional circumstances”
requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of
the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel
under § 1915. See id.
This case does not present exceptional circumstances. As set forth above, the Court has
determined that the claims are wholly without merit. Thus, the request fails at the evaluation of
the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits. Accordingly, the request for appointment of
counsel is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice. Plaintiff’s
request for appointment of counsel is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02596-JST Document 5 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 5