Henri v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
DARRELL HENRI,
Plaintiff,
-against-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendant.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-1487 (EK)(SDE)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Darrell Henri brings this action against the
Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). 	Proceeding pro se, he alleges that the FBI violated
his rights under a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Compl., ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted solely for the purpose of this order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 	ECF No. 2. 	For the following
reasons, however, the complaint must be dismissed.
Discussion
A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” 	Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir.
Case 1:25-cv-01487-EK-SDE Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2011).1 	At the pleading stage of the proceeding, the Court must
assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual
allegations” in the complaint. 	Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010). 	Although factual
allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet
is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards
than pleadings drafted by attorneys and the Court is required to
read the plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally and interpret it
to raise the strongest claims it suggests. 	Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1,
537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008). 	Still, a pro se plaintiff
is not exempt from “compliance with relevant rules of procedural
and substantive law.” 	Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.
1983). 	A pro se complaint must therefore plead sufficient facts
to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must
dismiss an in forma pauperis action that “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Case 1:25-cv-01487-EK-SDE Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.”
The complaint alleges that on July 12, 2023, Plaintiff
lost his apartment “because the FBI was trying to set [him] up
for a crime [he] didn’t commit.” 	Compl. 5. 	It also alleges
that he “was tortured,” though Plaintiff seeks that “the court
upholds justice in whichever way justice may lie.” 	Id. at 5-6.
Plaintiff’s claims against the FBI, a United States
government agency, are barred because, absent a waiver of
sovereign immunity, federal courts lack subject-matter
jurisdiction over claims against the United States or its
agencies. 	See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
475 (1994); Robinson v. Overseas Mil. Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502,
510 (2d Cir. 1994). 	It is Plaintiff’s burden to establish the
waiver; absent that, the Court will lack jurisdiction. 	See
Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).
Here, the United States has not waived sovereign immunity. 	See
Selby v. United States, No. 24-CV-8761, 2025 WL 552609, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2025) (FBI is entitled to sovereign
immunity).
In addition, “a Bivens action will only lie against a
federal government official. 	Bivens actions against the United
States are routinely dismissed.” 	Mack v. United States, 814
F.2d 120, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1987). 	Since Plaintiff brought this
Case 1:25-cv-01487-EK-SDE Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
action against the FBI and no individual official, it is not a
proper Bivens claim.2
Conclusion
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Still, given his pro se status, Plaintiff will be
granted thirty days from the date of this order to amend the
complaint. 	Any amended complaint will completely replace, not
supplement, the prior complaint.
Therefore, the amended complaint must include all
claims and factual allegations against all defendants, must be
captioned an “Amended Complaint,” and should bear the same
docket number as this Memorandum and Order. 	If Plaintiff fails
to file an amended complaint within the time allowed or cure the
deficiencies identified in this order, the case will be
dismissed with prejudice, and judgment shall enter.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore
in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any
2 	Even when brought properly against a federal official, Bivens claims
that fall outside the previously recognized contexts face a very high
pleading burden. 	Goldey v. Fields, 606 U.S. 942, 944 (2025) (per curiam)
(“[R]ecognizing a cause of action under Bivens is a disfavored judicial
activity.”). 	Plaintiff cites a criminal statute as the source of the
violation here, but Bivens claims have only been recognized for
constitutional violations. 	Chin v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 21, 24 (2d Cir. 1987).
Moreover, it is well settled that “in our federal system crimes are always
prosecuted by the Federal Government, not . . . by private complaints,” Conn.
Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1972).
Case 1:25-cv-01487-EK-SDE Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
appeal. 	Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of
this order to Plaintiff and to note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	December 19, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-01487-EK-SDE Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>