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.

Khalil v. United States Air Force

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 12, 2018

ADIL KHALIL, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOUR UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE GENERAL COUNCIL [sic] JOSEPH M. MCDADE, JR., UNITED STATES AIR FORCE GENERAL COUNCIL [sic] UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE INSPECTOR GENERAL, and FEDERAL AGENT NATALIE P. BECERRA, Defendants. ADIL KHALIL, Plaintiff,
v.
GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO, ANN M. SULLIVAN, Commissioner, NYS Office of Mental Health; NEW YORK STATE TROOPER JOHN DOES 1-3, the STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Joseph F. Bianco, Judge

         On June 2, 2017, pro se plaintiff Adil Khalil ("plaintiff) filed a complaint against the United States Air Force and the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("defendants") as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Khalil v. United States Air Force, 17-cv-2652 (E.D.N.Y.June 2, 2017) ("Khalil”), Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On July 17, 2017, plaintiff moved to transfer the action to the United States Court of Federal Claims (id. Dkt. No. 6), where plaintiff had filed a related action on July 13, 2017, Khalil v. United States of America, 17-cv-0962 (Fed. CI. July 13, 2017). On August 1, 2017, defendants requested that the Court dismiss the complaint on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. (See Khalil I, Dkt. No. 7.) However, because 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4), which governs the transfer of actions to the Court of Federal Claims, prevents courts from taking any action when a transfer motion is filed until sixty (60) days after that court has ruled upon the motion, the undersigned requested that defendants submit any opposition to the motion to transfer by August 31, 2017. (See Id. Dkt. No. 8.) On August 19, 2017, before defendants responded to that Order, plaintiff opposed defendants' request for dismissal on subject matter grounds and filed an amended complaint. (See Id. Dkt. No. 9). The amended complaint names as defendants: the United States of America, four unknown federal agents (John Does 1-4), United States Air Force General Council Joseph M. McDade, Jr., "United States Air Force General Council unknown Federal Agent United States Air Force Attorney General", "United States Air Force unknown Federal Agent", United States Air Force Inspector General, and Federal Agent Natalie P. Becerra ("Becerra" and collectively, "defendants"). By letter dated September 11, 2017, defendants indicated that they did not object to the request to transfer. (See Id. Dkt. No. 10.) In response, by motion dated September 18, 2017, plaintiff requested that the Court: (1) find defendants in contempt for responding to the Court's Order on September 11, 2017, when their response was due August 31, 2017; and (2) enter default judgment in plaintiffs favor. (See Id. Dkt. No. 14.)

         On August 2, 2017, the Court of Federal Claims issued an Order that: (1) dismissed the complaint, (2) denied plaintiffs motion to transfer that case to this Court (which he filed on the same day he moved to transfer the instant action), and (3) denied plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Khalil v. United States, No. 17-C V-0962 (Fed. CI. Aug. 2, 2017), Dkt. No. 7. Given the dismissal, by Order dated September 27, 2017, the undersigned denied plaintiffs motion to transfer. (Khalil 7, Dkt. No. 15.) In addition, in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)'s prohibition on any action in a case in which a motion to transfer to the Court of Federal Claims is filed until sixty (60) days after the court has ruled upon the motion, the undersigned stayed all pending motions in the instant action for sixty (60) days. (Id.) On November 28, 2017, defendants renewed their request for a pre-motion conference in order to establish a briefing schedule for their motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. (Khalil I, Dkt. 16.) To date, plaintiff has not opposed defendants' request.

         In addition, on September 18, 2017, plaintiff filed another in forma pauperis complaint. Khalil v. Cuomo, 17-cv-5458 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2017) ("Khalil II), Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. Khalil II is against the State of New York, Governor Cuomo, Ann M. Sullivan, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, and three unidentified New York State Troopers, John Does 1-3. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs motions to proceed in forma pauperis are granted; however, because neither the amended complaint in Khalil I, nor the complaint in Khalil II alleges a plausible claim, the complaints are sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         BACKGROUND

         I. Khalil I

         Plaintiffs amended complaint is submitted on the Court's complaint form and purports to allege Bivens claims against defendants. (See Khalil 7, Dkt. No. 9, Compl. ¶ II.) Plaintiff claims that the defendants have deprived him of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and have conspired to do so, in connection with their "covert or overt" surveillance of plaintiff s activities on the "world wide web (internet/electronic) and telephone conversation[s]." (Id. ¶¶ II.B-D., III.A.) According to the amended complaint, from June 16, 2011 to the present, plaintiff has suffered "a denial of service attack on [his] personal computer" and "the federal government has failed to protect [his] internet rights." (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff also complains that the government has violated his rights by "intruding [his] private computer or iPhone and monopolizing or compromising his internet privacy and rights to free expression." (Id.) Plaintiff further complains that the government has "allowed a schizophrenic bipolar federal employee [to] violate[] online impersonation laws and cyber stalking laws." (Id. ¶ 14.)

         Plaintiff alleges that, since his filing of the original complaint in this case on June 2, 2017, "the federal government continues to restrict [his] internet access" and "continues to allow the federal employee female stalker to threaten the plaintiffs mental well-being." (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff claims that Becerra is being used by the FBI "as an informant/asset/operative against [him] in an attempted entrapment sting" and, since 2010, the "FBI has monopolized and [taken] total control of [his] computer and internet." (Id. ¶ 25). As evidence, plaintiff describes that "frequent Goggle [sic] search results and pop up ads on [his] computer has resulted in [a] surge of conspiracy theorists who, otherwise, without the FBI influence, would be unknown to [plaintiff.]" (Id.) Thus, plaintiff claims the "FBI in controlling advertisement and search results in an attempted brainwashing scheme, and is a violation of the plaintiffs fourth amendment right." (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that the "FBI was working in conspiracy with the NYPD" to designate plaintiff as a mentally disturbed person and that such conduct has caused plaintiff to suffer a "mental breakdown from internet stalking." (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28-29.)

         As a result, plaintiff claims to have suffered "mental illness (adjustment disorder), complications and metastasis of an auto-immune disease, loss of employment (adjustment disorder)" and seeks to recover a damages award in total sum of $550, 000, 000.00. (Id. ¶¶ IV-V.)

         II. Khalil II

         As noted above, on September 18, 2017, plaintiff filed an additional complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis against the State of New York, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Ann M. Sullivan, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, and three unidentified New York State Troopers (John Does 1 -3). Like Khalil I, the complaint in Khalil II is difficult to comprehend. Plaintiff appears to complain that, on December 26, 2015 and September 7, 2017, New York State police troopers did not assist him during telephone calls he made to them. (Khalil II, Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff claims he called the police to report internet harassment by "a mentally ill female stalker" he identifies as Becerra, a defendant in Khalil I. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that the State of New York has "inflict[ed] mental illness through a series of continued adjustment disorders[, ] [a]nd with the filing of this instant action against the State of New York, progressing to Axis 1 major mental illness which resulted in a complete collapse of my immune system through the auto immune disease and psychological disorder Sarcoidosis." (Id.) Plaintiff also complains that the State of New York "has failed to enforce several laws" and cites various sections of the New York Penal Law relating to stalking and harassment. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further alleges that "[t]he State of New York continues to use me as a scapegoat for their anger and frustration for the terrorist attacks on 911." (Id. ¶ 5.) Based on the foregoing, plaintiff claims to have suffered "mental illness (adjustment disorder), complications and metastasis of an auto-immune disease, loss of employment (adjustment disorder). (Id. ¶ IV.) For relief, plaintiff seeks damages totaling $ 13 million. (Id. ¶ V.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. In Forma Pauperis Applications

         Upon review of plaintiff s declarations in support of the applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that plaintiff is qualified to commence these actions without prepayment of the filing fees. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(1). ...


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.