Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mohammad v. Connolly

May 25, 2007

KHALID MOHAMMAD AND MUNAZZA MOHAMMAD, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MIKE CONNOLLY, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,*FN1 AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Feuerstein, J.

OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

On March 23, 2006, pro se plaintiffs Khalid Mohammad and Munazza Mohammad commenced civil action number 06-CV-1342 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their civil rights. On May 5, 2006, pro se plaintiff Khalid Mohammad commenced civil action number 06-CV-2087 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. On May 18, 2006, the Court ordered that case numbers 06-CV-1342 and 06-CV-2087 be consolidated into lead case number 06-CV-1342 as related actions. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation ("Defendant" or "FBI") now moves, unopposed, for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).*fn2 For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is granted.*fn3

II. Plaintiffs' Pleadings

A pro se plaintiff's submissions are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . ." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). To this end, a court must "read the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally and interpret them 'to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'" McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). Nonetheless, a pro se plaintiff is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 834 n. 36 (1975).

III. Background

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Khalid Mohammad ("Khalid") claims to be a legal resident of New York, but lists an address in Marina, California. See06-CV-1342 Compl. at 1. Plaintiff Munazza Mohammad ("Munazza"), his sister, is a resident of Central Islip, New York. See id.

During the Summer of 2004, Khalid viewed sexually explicit video clips and photographs of Jane Doe over the internet. 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 3-4. Khalid was then thirty five (35) years old. 06-CV-1342 Compl., Ex. A at 2. Khalid admitted to knowing that Jane Doe was a minor. Id. at 5. Khalid began to converse with Jane Doe over the phone, and he eventually went to California to allegedly meet with her and her parents. See06-CV-1342 Compl. at 4; Ex. A at 4-6.

On November 16, 2004, Khalid was arrested in King City, County of Monterey, California. See 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 4; Ex. A. Khalid was charged with five (5) counts: 1) stalking in violation of California Penal Code § 646.9; 2) child pornography in violation of California Penal Code § 311.1; 3) two counts of telephonic or electronic communication with the intent to annoy in violation of California Penal Code § 653m; and 4) attempted extortion in violation of California Penal Code § 524. 06-CV-1342 Compl., Ex. C at 1. As part of a plea agreement, Khalid entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to Count I, stalking, as a felony offense, and Count IV, attempted extortion, as a felony offense. Id. Khalid is currently serving a probation sentence in California. 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 2.

After Khalid's arrest in California, certain of his and Munazza's property, including Munazza's computer, was seized in New York. 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 4-5; Ex. D.2. Khalid and Munazza claim that prosecutors in California "deliberately destroyed or ignored all incriminating evidence against Jane Doe." 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 5. Munazza also claims that the seized computers contain medical research data, which is unrelated to the charges against Khalid. 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 5; Ex. D.2. Munazza claims that she had a conversation with defendant Mike Connolly in which he stated he had received the computers back from the District Attorney's Office in California and that they could be retrieved by Khalid reporting to the Suffolk County Police Department with his picture identification. 06-CV-1342 Compl., Ex. D.2.

B. Plaintiffs' Claims

In the first complaint, plaintiffs allege that "[m]unicipal defendants deliberately violated the constitutional privileges and civil rights of the plaintiffs through malfeasance on two (2) major counts." 06-CV-1342 Compl. at 2-3. Plaintiffs allege in the first "count" that Mike Connolly "abetted to contaminate the seized property by transferring it from the jurisdiction of Suffolk County in NY to the jurisdiction of the county of Monterey in CA for a malicious prosecution of the criminal case against [Khalid]." Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). In the second "count," plaintiffs allege that "the municipal defendant facilitated prosecution in CA in violating 'MEGAN'S LAW.'" Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs allege that the prosecution in California engaged in spoliation of the child pornography and a "selective prosecution" against Khalid. Id. Plaintiffs allege that they "suffer ongoing FEAR for the safety of the under aged [sic] children in [Khalid] and [Munazza's] extended family," although there are no other references to any children. Id.(emphasis in original). The complaint lacks a prayer for relief and a signature page. Attached to the complaint are copies of a King City Police Department Incident Report (Ex. A); Memorandum of Investigator David Norum, of the Office of the District Attorney, County of Monterey, dated December 14, 2004 (Ex. B); Probation Officer's Report in State of California v. Khalid Mohammad, Action No. SS040391A in Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, King City Division (Ex. C); and affidavits of Khalid and Munazza (Ex. D).

In the second complaint, plaintiff alleges that "[m]unicipal defendants violated the plaintiff's civil rights (42 U.S.C.A. § 1983) by deliberately abetting CAP*fn4 to commission misconduct." 06-CV-2087 Compl. at 4. Plaintiff claims that "[d]efendants can be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) under which a defendant '. . . causes an act to be done . . .' that act being a violation of another statute, in this case 18 U.S.C. § 1462." Id.(citation omitted). Further, plaintiff asserts that "[m]unicipal defendants abetted CAP violate [sic] the plaintiff's civil rights ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.