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
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390