Joshua Anthony Jones, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging that he was the subject of unconsented human experimentation involving nanotechnology by federal agencies including the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the NSA. Jones claimed this technology, allegedly used since 2012, interfered with his thoughts and bodily functions and caused him to hear screams of torture. He brought claims against the United States under dozens of federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and the Constitution pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. The District Court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Jones appealed to the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit exercised plenary review and determined that the appeal did not present a substantial question, warranting summary action. The court reaffirmed the principle that 'absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.' The court agreed with the District Court that the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity for Jones's claims. The court noted that several of Jones's claims relied on statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 941, that do not exist. For the other statutes, executive orders, and regulations cited, the court found that none provided a cause of action or waived the government's immunity. Consequently, Jones's Bivens claims were also barred. The court further agreed that Jones did not plead a negligence or other tort claim invoking the Federal Tort Claims Act. Regarding the procedural posture, the court held that because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice, not with prejudice, as dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are 'by definition without prejudice.'
The District Court's dismissal of Jones's complaint is affirmed but modified to be without prejudice. This means the case is closed for now, but Jones is not permanently barred from filing a new complaint on these grounds if he can identify a valid statutory waiver of sovereign immunity or a valid cause of action. The modification corrects the legal error that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be with prejudice. The court also denied Jones's various motions for injunctive relief or arguments against dismissal as a consequence of the dismissal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download