Summary
This document is a Report and Recommendations issued by a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Ohio regarding a pro se civil lawsuit filed by an incarcerated plaintiff against the Central Intelligence Agency. The plaintiff alleges that federal agents implanted a device in his head without consent following a PREA report, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. After conducting a mandatory initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the magistrate concludes the complaint fails to state a plausible claim, noting that Bivens actions do not extend to federal agencies and the allegations lack factual plausibility. Consequently, the magistrate recommends dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's complaint states a plausible claim against the CIA under 28 U.S.C. §1915A
- Whether a Bivens action is available against a federal agency such as the CIA
Holdings
- The complaint must be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to state a plausible claim and Bivens does not extend to federal agencies.
Key quotations
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
“Because the CIA is a federal agency, Plaintiff’s claim against it cannot proceed.”
Factual background
Woodrow Wolfe, an inmate at Warren Correctional Institution, alleges that after filing a PREA report he was targeted by prison staff. He claims the CIA and FBI, without his consent, placed a "Beacon"—described as an AI chatbot—inside his head that urged him to kill himself. Wolfe seeks monetary damages and removal of the device.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging the CIA implanted a "Beacon" in his head. The United States Magistrate Judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and issued a report and recommendation to dismiss.