Iams v. FBI 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Craig Arthur Iams,
Plaintiff,
v.
FBI, Department of Unknown Persons 1,
Department of Unknown Persons 2,
Department of Unknown Persons 3,
Defendants.
No. CV 25-4422 PHX CDB
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). Accordingly, his Complaint
is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal if it is frivolous, malicious,” or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Section 1915(e)
“not only permits, but requires, a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Upon
screening the Complaint it appears Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief could be granted. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not consented to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction over this, the undersigned makes the following proposed findings of
fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to General Order 21-25.
Screening under § 1915(e)(2) is performed under the same standard of review as
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6

- 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
(9th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to give the defendant fair notice
of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint
that fails to allege a cognizable legal theory or alleges insufficient facts under a
cognizable legal theory fails to state a plausible claim for relief. See UMG Recordings,
Inc. v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013). It is the duty of
Plaintiff to articulate his claims and the legal theory under which his claims are brought,
and the Court is not required to decipher what claim(s) Plaintiff is asserting. Because one
of the primary functions of a complaint is to provide a factual basis for the plaintiff’s
claims, a complaint written without clarity and specificity as to who is being sued and for
what “fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996).
Although the Court must accept as true all well-pled allegations of material fact, it
is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Wood
v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 755 n.5 (2014). And although the Court must liberally construe a
pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, e.g., Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010),
conclusory statements, “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s],”
and factual allegations that only permit the Court to infer the “possibility of misconduct”
fall short of meeting the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. See also Starr v.
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2011); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962,
969 (9th Cir. 2009). Even pro se pleadings must contain a minimum level of factual
support and a plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if the Court
must invent scenarios not evident from the face of the complaint. See Richmond v. Cagle,
920 F. Supp. 955, 957 (E.D. Wis. 1996), cited in Staples v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec.,
No. 06–cv-2034, 2007 WL 864742, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 20, 2007). To survive screening,
“[t]he plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6

- 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
defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.” Jones v. Community
Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotations omitted).
… Section 1915(d) is designed largely to discourage the filing of,
and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that
paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing
suit … To this end, the statute accords judges not only the authority to
dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, … [such
as] claims against … defendants [who] are immune from suit, [], and claims
of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist …
Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a violation of his civil rights by federal officials, i.e.,
he presents a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (ECF No. 1 at 3). To state a cognizable claim for
relief pursuant to Bivens the plaintiff must show that they suffered a violation of a
specific right protected by the Constitution and the violation was caused by a person
acting under color of federal law. See Morgan v. United States, 323 F.3d 776, 780 (9th
Cir. 2003). Plaintiff alleges unknown federal employees violated his “Right to Privacy &
Unreasonable Search and Seizure of Private Property.” (ECF No. 1 at 3-4). Plaintiff does
not supply any information with regard to “how each defendant acted under color of
federal law.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). With regard to where the events giving rise to his claims
occurred, Plaintiff states: “Anthem Az and where ever travel,” and he alleges the subject
events occurred in April of 2024. (Id.). Plaintiff states the facts underlying his claims as
follows:
I am being followed and filmed most everywhere I go. My devices and
vehicle have been tampered with and compromised. Pictures on phone have
disappeared or modified. Ring doorbell and home cameras do not record as
they once did. I don’t know who else involved. My wife saw those I
pointed out to her when she was with me.
(Id.). With regard to his injuries, Plaintiff avers: “Devices do not work as designed.
Emotional trauma by constant surveillance. Have consulted several therapists for extreme
stress this is causing.” (ECF No. 1 at 5). In his prayer for relief Plaintiff asks the Court to
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6

- 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
“Serve notice to them to stop following me around and surveillance. I feel monies spent
for therapy should be reimbursed to me. This was between $600-$700. Phone and car
have been hacked – I feel I should be reimbursed to correct these.” (Id.).
There is no plausible allegation in the Complaint that any identified or named
defendant acted under the color of federal law or deprived Plaintiff of a right secured by
the United States Constitution and cognizable in a Bivens suit. Plaintiff alleges that his
devices and his car have been “tampered with,” but he does not state any facts as to how
he knows any federal agent tampered with his car, or how he knows his devices have
been breached. Plaintiff asserts that his Ring doorbell and his security cameras do not
function as “they once did,” but he does not describe specifically how these devices’
functions have been altered. Plaintiff does not delineate specifically when or where, or by
whom, he has been followed or surveilled (other than stating he is followed
“everywhere”), or why he believes anyone who is following or surveilling him is a
federal agent, or for what reason a federal agent would be surveilling him.
To state a cognizable Bivens Fourth Amendment claim a plaintiff must plead facts
sufficient to establish either an illegal search, which occurs when a government official
infringes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as entering a person’s home on a
specific date without a proper warrant, or an illegal seizure of a person or their property,
which occurs when a government official meaningfully interferes with a person’s
possessory interests in his property or takes an overt act to impede a person’s freedom of
movement. Plaintiff does not state where or when any government official seized him or
his property, nor does he specify where, when, or in what manner he has been “followed”
such that his freedom of movement has been hampered, or on what basis he believes it is
a federal government agent who is purportedly following him.
In Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) the Supreme Court held that the federal
courts may not provide a Bivens remedy in a context not previously established in a
successful Bivens suit. There is no clearly established precedent for finding that
“following” a citizen, presumably at a distance, or even tampering with a citizen’s home
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6

- 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
monitoring devices provides the basis for a cognizable Bivens claim. See Rand v.
Tarwater, No. 15-cv-688, 2020 WL 6018942, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020). Plaintiff
does not assert sufficient facts to plausibly allege that any named Defendant violated
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, or when and where, specifically, any such event
occurred. See Libman v. United States, 2024 WL2269271, at *1 (9th Cir. May 20, 2024);
Stevens v. FBI, No. 19-cv-00247, 2020 WL 3442208, at *3-4 (D. Alaska Mar. 30, 2020),
report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 3440926 (D. Alaska June 23, 2020).
If a pro se plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in their complaint the Court may give
them leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies, the Court may
dismiss a complaint accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with
prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2005); Eminence Cap.,
LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. There
is no indication Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in his Complaint and, accordingly,
dismissal without leave to amend is warranted. See Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 767
(9th Cir. 2014) (noting a court can deny leave to amend when it is “absolutely clear” a
plaintiff cannot cure the complaint’s deficiencies).
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint it should be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege sufficient facts to support a plausible,
cognizable Bivens claim.
IT IS FINALLY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s pending motions at ECF
Nos. 3, 4 and 5 be denied as moot.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
judgment. Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall have
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within
which to file specific written objections with the Court. Pursuant to Rule 7.2(e)(3), Local
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
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
Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed ten (10) pages in length.
Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the
District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the
Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the
findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6