United States District Court, D. Maryland
Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge.
se Plaintiff Steven Moseley ("Plaintiff' or
"Moseley") brings this action seeking to enjoin the
United States of America, the Maryland State Police, and the
Maryland Department of Human Resources from subjecting him to
investigation, surveillance, and harassment. On March 27,
2017, this Court dismissed Moseley's prior efforts to
obtain such relief because of his failure to properly summon
the named Defendants. (No. ELH-17-0328, ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiffs current lawsuit names the Maryland State Police,
Colonel William Pallozzi, the Maryland Department of Human
Resources, Secretary Lourdes R. Padilla, and former United
States Attorney General Jeff Sessions as Defendants.
United States of America, on behalf of former United States
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has filed a Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 10). The Maryland Department of Human
Services and the Maryland State Police (together,
the "State Defendants") have also filed a Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 14). Having reviewed the motions, no hearing
is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018).
For the reasons set forth below, the United States'
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED and the State
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.
This case shall be DISMISSED as to all Defendants.
ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court "accept[s] as
true all well-pleaded facts in a complaint and construe[s]
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."
Wikimedia Found. v. Nat' Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d
193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing SD3, LLC v. Black &
Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015)).
As a pro se Plaintiff, this Court has
"liberally construed" Moseley's pleadings and
held them to "less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v.
tardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Alley v. Yadkin
County Sheriff Dept, No. 17-1249, 698 Fed.Appx. 141,
2017 WL 4415771 (4th Cir. Oct. 5, 2017). Additionally, this
Court takes proper judicial notice of "docket entries,
pleadings and papers in other cases" in reciting the
background of this case. Brown v. Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC, PJM-14-3454, 2015 WL 5008763, at *1 n.3 (D. Md.
Aug. 20, 2015), aff'd, 639 Fed.Appx. 200 (4th
not Moseley's first lawsuit alleging unlawful acts by the
United States, the Maryland State Police, and the Maryland
Department of Human Resources. On February 3, 2017, he
commenced a lawsuit in this Court against the same
Defendants, alleging acts of "cyber terrorism and
terrorist acts conducted by contracted actors."
(ELH-17-0328, ECF No. 1.) After failing to provide summons
for the named Defendants, this Court dismissed Moseley's
Complaint without prejudice and subsequently denied his
Motion to Reopen the case. (ECF Nos. 4, 8.)
action, Moseley states that he "believes he was some how
falsely labeled, and came under investigation (under
fabricated pretenses).. . since November 2010 for unknown
reasons." (ECF No. 1, at ¶ 7.) He alleges that
Defendants have committed "covert acts of cyber
terrorism," subjected him to home invasions, placed him
under 24/7 surveillance, and used "contracted
actors" to harass him. (Id. at ¶ 20.)
Because of these acts, Moseley claims that he has been unable
to maintain employment. (Id. at ¶ 21.) The
Complaint attaches an April 17, 2012 Cease and Desist Letter
directed to the Maryland State Police, Office of the
Superintendent, which asks the Police to restore his internet
access on all platforms. (ECF No. 1-2.) Moseley brings
several legal claims and petitions this Court to enter a
Preliminary Injunction, a Show Cause Order, and a Declaratory
Judgment. He does not seek monetary damages.
17, 2018, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss
Moseley's claims (ECF No. 10). On August 16, 2018, the
State Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14.)
Despite receiving correspondence from the Clerk of Court
warning that his lawsuit might be subject to dismissal,
Moseley has not responded to the Motions. (ECF Nos. 11, 15.)
general matter, when a litigant proceeds pro se,
their filings should be "liberally construed" and
"held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted).
Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1).
grants a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
"where a claim fails to allege facts upon which the
court may base jurisdiction." Davis v.
Thompson, 367 F.Supp.2d 792, 799 (D. Md. 2005).
"When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenge is raised to the
factual basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the burden of
proving subject matter jurisdiction is on the
plaintiff." Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Or.
1991), citing Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219
(4th Cir. 1982). In evaluating a challenge to the court's
subject-matter jurisdiction, the district court is permitted
to "consider evidence outside the pleadings without
converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment."
Richmond, 945 F.2d at 1219.
Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process under
motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process is
permitted by Federal Rule 12(b)(5). "Once service has
been contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing the validity of service pursuant to Rule
4." Parker v. Am. Brokers Conduit, 179
F.Supp.3d 509, 515 (D. Md. 2016) (citing O'Meara v.
Waters,464 F.Supp.2d 474, 476 (D. Md. 2006)). While in
some cases the failure to strictly comply with Rule 4 may not
invalidate service of process if the defendant acquires
actual notice of the pending action, the plain requirements
for effecting service of process may not be ignored.