Dhakal v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SASWOT DHAKAL, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:24-cv-02056-TNM FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Saswot Dhakal alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been stalking, harassing, and intimidating him for nearly a decade. Compl., ECF No. 1; Pl. Opp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 22. His examples range from “cracking [the] windshield of [his] car and growing it every time [he] was having a bad day” to accusing “agents” of “flourish[ing]” a “situation” that “led to his [stepfather’s] untimely death” by heart attack. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. He also alleges that the FBI has sent officers to his job, stationed detectives at job interviews, and stalked his online activities. Id. at 2. Dhakal requests just over $500 billion in compensation because he alleges the FBI’s campaign against him has ruined his health, finances, family, and career prospects. Id. at 5; Pl Mot. Injunction, ECF No. 24 at 2. He also has asked for an emergency injunction to require the FBI to pay him $500,000 while the case is pending. Pl. Mot. Injunction, ECF No. 24. Dhakal acknowledges that he is making an “unusual and justified” request. Id. at 1. The Government, meanwhile, moves for dismissal. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20. These motions are ripe for consideration.

“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) (cleaned up). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is not plausible. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Courts cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such a complaint. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (cleaned up). So a court must dismiss a complaint “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Notwithstanding the generous standards afforded pro se plaintiffs, see Yellen v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Assn., 301 F. Supp. 3d 43, 46-47 (D.D.C. 2018), Dhakal’s Complaint fails to justify Article III jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit approved dismissing a complaint on jurisdictional grounds when it similarly alleged that the Government had launched a “massive surveillance program” over the plaintiff, including using “tracking devices” on his car. See Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009). That court also approved of dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction when it alleged government harassment “from uncertain origins” that may have included a “long past employment by the FBI.” Id. So too here. The Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. 1

A separate Order will issue.

2025.02.28 16:13:48 -05'00' ______________________

TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge DATE: February 28, 2025

1 Granting the Motion to Dismiss renders Dhakal’s Emergency Motion for Injunction moot.