This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Due Process Violation
Unlawful Search and Seizure

William Lee Grant II v. Michael Patrick Chamberlain Carns

Published: Jan. 20, 2023 | Result Date: Sep. 30, 2022 | Filing Date: May 18, 2022 |

Case number: 5:22-cv-02932-SVK Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Susan G. Van Keulen

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

James A. Scharf
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

William Lee Grant II filed an action against Michael Carns, who served as the Director of the Joint Staff from 1989 to 1991 and as the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1991 to 1994.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant and other government officials committed various Constitutional violations, statutory violations, and tortious acts against plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that defendant and other federal officials entered into an agreement in July 1990 to unlawfully detain him. Plaintiff alleged that defendant and other officials detained him in Illinois under threat of military force beginning in 1992 "to be the DoD's Witness to the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks," directed his health care providers to physically harm him, "intimidated him to stab" someone, and forced him to "act as a homosexual" for more than seven years. Plaintiff contended that defendant and others violated his Constitutional rights (including his rights to be free of unlawful search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment and his right to adequate counsel), violated several statutes (including 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985) and committed various torts (including invasion of privacy, assault and battery).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions and argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims and the complaint failed to state a claim. Specifically, defendant contended that claims involving "fantastical government conspiracies" are not sufficient to invoke the court's subject matter jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to present an administrative tort claim before filing this action, as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA); plaintiff's intentional tort claims were barred by the FTCA intentional tort exception; and plaintiff's other federal statutory claims lacked merit.

Result

Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend.


#140092

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390