Seelig v. Central Intelligence Agency

1                                                                         
2                                                                         
3                                                                         
4                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                       
5                     NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                     
6                                                                         
7    CHRISTOPHER SEELIG,              Case No.  25-cv-06592-TSH           

8              Plaintiff,                                                 
                                      ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S          
9          v.                                                             
                                      APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN           

10    CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et  FORMA PAUPERIS                      
     al.,                                                                 
11                                     REPORT & RECOMMENDATION             
               Defendants.                                                
12                                                                         

13                                                                         
14                            I.  INTRODUCTION                             
15        Plaintiff Christopher Seelig initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and 
16   application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2).  For the reasons stated below, the Court 
17   GRANTS the application but finds the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be 
18   granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).  As not all parties have consented to magistrate judge 
19   jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court requests this case be reassigned to a district 
20   judge for disposition.  The undersigned RECOMMENDS the complaint be DISMISSED 
21   WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.                                               
22                            II.  BACKGROUND                              
23        Plaintiff brings this case against the CIA, US Army Intelligence and Security, Alameda 
24   Police Department, and FBI,1 alleging claims under criminal code sections 18 U.S.C. § 371 
25   (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States), 18 U.S.C. §1347 (Health care fraud), 
26   18 U.S.C. § 1510 (Obstruction of criminal investigations); 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (Retaliating against a 
27                                                                         
1   witness, victim, or an informant), 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Engaging in monetary transactions in 
2   property derived from specified unlawful activity), 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (defining racketeering 
3   activity), 18 U.S.C. § 2332a (Use of weapons of mass destruction), 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) (defining 
4   domestic terrorism activities), 18 U.S.C. § 4101 (providing definitions for transfer of prisoners to 
5   or from foreign countries), and 21 U.S.C. § 84l (drug offenses).  Compl. at 3.  He alleges 
6   Defendants “owe the plaintiff l3 Million dollars cumulatively for engaging in a pattern of corrupt 
7   and dangerous activity regarding the plaintiff’s life.  Murder for hire plot, conspiracy to commit 
8   offenses, RICO Act violations, poisoning and many more insidious acts.”  Id. at 4.  These events 
9   took place in “San Diego CA, San Francisco CA, Oakland CA, London United Kingdom, Istanbul 
10   Turkey, Toledo OH, Alameda, CA.”  Id. at 4.                           
11        Plaintiff alleges:                                               

12             Taenia Solium infection via Taco Bell food poisoned by federal 
              officials likely through bribes at the drive through, December 24, 
13             2024 Onchocerciasis infecting fly bite. On or about May 22, 2025 
              Second  strategically  placed  set  of  African  Similium  Black  flies 
14             resulting  in  bites  which  transmitted  deadly  pathogens  including 
              Schistosomiasis and Nacgcria Fowleri Cysts and Trophozoites, On or 
15             about May 18, 2025 Istanbul TurkeyOn [sic] or about June 6th, 2025 
              after  having  somewhat  recovered  from  the  first  infections,  the 
16             plaintiff experienced additional  black  fly bites containing deadly 
              pathogens  of  a  different  type  (lymphatic  filariasis,  Plasmodium 
17             Falciparum, Plasmodium Vivax, and either Trypanosoma Brucei or 
              Trypansoma Cruzi. This has been confirmed with my own personal 
18             digital microscope  which  I  will  provide  evidence tor. (Hospitals 
              refused to treat me due to corruption and federal agent manipulation.) 
19                                                                         
20   Id. at 5.  He further alleges:                                        

21             At the end of September 2024 the plaintiff began to experience 
              vicious  gangstalking,  harassment,  slander,  smear  campaigns,  and 
22             manipulation of employment. Plaintiff believes at this time that he 
              was  erroneously  added  to  a  watchlist  based  on  the  false, 
23             misunderstood, or fabricated statements of others.  Since then I have 
              continuously suffered conspicuous surveillance, harassment, business 
24             dealings  interference,  hacking,  poisoning,  attempted  murder,  and 
              treasonous acts against the plaintiff and the country. From the period 
25             of September 2024 the FBI (which I have decided not to name in this 
              suit) along with the CIA, US Army Intelligence, and likely the NSA 
26             as well as other departments, engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity 
              sufficiently reaching the definitions for the RICO Act. The defendants 
27             operated a corrupt criminal enterprise that sought to benefit off of the 
              who is innocent. This abuse continues to this day and has included 
1             numerous attempts on my life including poisoning with weapons of 
              mass destruction.                                           
2                                                                         
3   Id.   Plaintiff alleges “[t]he diseases that they poisoned me with caused irreversible brain damage, 
4   loss of vision, loss of cognition, emotional trauma, PTSD. loss of coordination, thousands spent on 
5   medications, loss of work. 2 near death experiences. Thousands wasted in travel attempting to flee 
6   danger. Damage to vital organs and nerve systems.”  Id. at 6.  In addition to $13 million in 
7   damages, Plaintiff requests the Court “issue an injunction barring the defendants from stalking, 
8   harassing and interfering with plaintiffs [sic] life.  Furthermore the plaintiff asks to be placed into 
9   the Federal Witness Protection Program for safety reasons and the continuous merciless attacks on 
10   my life including attempted murder.”  Id. at 7.                       
11                   III.  IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION                   
12        A district court may authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is 
13   satisfied the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit.  See 28 
14   U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).  Plaintiff submitted the required documentation demonstrating an inability to 
15   pay the costs of this action, and it is evident from the application that his assets and income are 
16   insufficient to enable payment of the fees.  Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 
17   application.                                                          
18             IV.  SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)      
19   A.   Legal Standard                                                   
20        A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it “(i) is 
21   frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 
22   monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”  28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(i)-
23   (iii).  “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 
24   relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
25   12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.”  Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 
26   2012) (citation omitted).  As such, the complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish each 
27   defendant’s liability.  See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).  “A claim has 
1   reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”  Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
2   556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).  In making this determination, the Court must “take as true all 
3   allegations of material fact stated in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to 
4   the plaintiff.”  Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112 (citation omitted).  The Court must also “construe a pro 
5   se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”  Id. (cleaned 
6   up).  However, the Court “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 
7   pled.”  Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992).           
8        A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 
9   complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 
10   to relief.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).  The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is 
11   not dependent on whether the complaint is without merit.  McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 
12   (9th Cir. 1996).  Accordingly, even claims which are not on their face subject to dismissal under 
13   Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a).  Id.    
14   B.   Application                                                      
15        The undersigned finds Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal because they are brought 
16   under federal criminal statutes, and it is well-established that “a private citizen lacks a judicially 
17   cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.”  Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 
18   410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (“These 
19   criminal provisions, however, provide no basis for civil liability.”); Redmond v. United States, 
20   2022 WL 1304472, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2022) (A “private individuals lack standing to assert 
21   claims for relief based on criminal statutes.”) (collecting cases).  Thus, “[i]ndividuals cannot file 
22   criminal charges in the United States District Court.  Rather, criminal proceedings in federal court 
23   are initiated by the government, usually through the United States Attorney’s Office.”  Candy-
24   Anh-Thu:Tran v. Daniel, 2017 WL 6513414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing Harbor v. 
25   Kim, 2017 WL 443164, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (“The decision to institute criminal 
26   proceedings lies within the discretion of the proper state or federal prosecuting authority”); see 
27   also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (observing that the executive branch has 
1   Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the claims alleged in his complaint.  See Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092.  
2   If Plaintiff believes the defendants engaged in criminal conduct, he must contact federal law 
3   enforcement or the United States Attorney’s Office and present the facts supporting that belief to 
4   them.                                                                 
5        Beyond the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the undersigned finds Plaintiff’s complaint should 
6   be dismissed because it is frivolous.  “‘A complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable 
7   basis either in law or in fact.’”  Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. 
8   Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).  The definition of frivolousness “embraces not only the 
9   arguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”  Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.  
10   When determining whether to dismiss a complaint as “frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 
11   1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court has “ ‘the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual 
12   allegations,’” meaning it “is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely 
13   on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.”  Denton, 504 
14   U.S. at 32 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).  Frivolous claims include “‘claims describing 
15   fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.’”  
16   Id. (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).  “An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed . . . 
17   simply because the court finds the plaintiff’s allegations unlikely.”  Id. at 33.  But “a finding of 
18   factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the 
19   wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict 
20   them.”  Id.  As the Ninth Circuit has explained, frivolous litigation “is not limited to cases in 
21   which a legal claim is entirely without merit . . . .  [A] person with a measured legitimate claim 
22   may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally 
23   false.”  Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1060–61 (9th Cir. 2007). 
24        Plaintiff alleges the CIA, US Army Intelligence and Security, Alameda Police Department, 
25   and FBI engaged in “conspicuous surveillance, harassment, business dealings interference, 
26   hacking, poisoning, attempted murder, and treasonous acts against the plaintiff and the country,” 
27   including murder for hire plots against him in California, Ohio, the United Kingdom, and Turkey.  
    1    likely through bribes at the drive through,” “Onchocerciasis infecting fly bites,” which resulted “in 
    2  || bites which transmitted deadly pathogens including Schistosomiasis and Nacgcria Fowleri Cysts 
    3    and Trophozoites, and “vicious gangstalking, harassment, slander, smear campaigns, and 
    4  |} manipulation of employment.”  The undersigned finds “[t]hese allegations fall further out on the 
    5    spectrum past implausible and toward the delusional, and the undersigned finds that they are 
    6    frivolous.”  Spitters v. Miceli, 2018 WL 6816110, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018), report and 
    7    recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 6822626 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) (dismissing as frivolous 
    8    complaint where plaintiff alleged, among other things that defendant was a super-spy and an 
    9  ||  assassin who was using a  fabricated identity to “get at” him).  Additionally, these allegations fail 
   10  ||  to stateaclaim.  A plaintiffs “‘shotgun’ pleading that does not give a defendant fair notice of 
   11    what a plaintiff is claiming against him is subject to dismissal.”  Spitters, 2018 WL 6816110, at *5 
    12    (citing Hughey v. Camacho, 2014 WL 5473184, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014).  Plaintiffs 
    13  || complaint does not put defendants on fair notice of what he is claiming against them. 
     14          Therefore, because Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim, the 
      15    undersigned recommends his complaint be dismissed 
     16                                   V.   CONCLUSION 
 3    17          Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma 
S   18  || pauperis.  As not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
   19    § 636(c), the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a district judge, with the 
   20  || recommendation that the complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 
   21          Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 
   22  || this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served.  Failure to file objections 
   23    within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. 
   24          IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 
   25 
   26  || Dated: August 6, 2025 
   27                                                       7 LU   \  -          — 
                                                        THOMAS S. HIXSON 
   28                                                    United States Magistrate Judge