Boie v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TIMOTHY BOIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOE,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 25-cv-11402-IT
ORDER
December 9, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
On June 27, 2025, the court issued an order finding that the complaint of Plaintiff
Timothy Boie, who is proceeding pro se, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. Mem. & Order [Doc. No. 15]. The court directed him to file an amended complaint to
cure the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint, and stated that failure to do so would
result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Id. Since that date, Plaintiff has filed three
amended complaints [Doc. Nos. 17, 20, 21], two motions for emergency injunctive relief [Doc.
Nos. 18, 22], and three other motions [Doc. Nos. 19, 24, 25]. For the reasons set forth below, the
court will DISMISS this action and terminate all pending motions.
I. 	Summary of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint
The court treats Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 21] as his operative
complaint. In this pleading, Plaintiff has named the United States as the sole defendant. Plaintiff
claims that “[t]he Defendant is violating [t]he Plaintiff’s First Amendment right by providing the
Plaintiff false White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) content on devices at public,
Case 1:25-cv-11402-IT Document 26 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 4

2
government, and private locations[.]” Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff states that he is a “musician and
professional software engineer,” and that he has “independently created a high-profile collection
of works that are on the Internet.” Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff asserts that his “career and high-publicity
homelessness make [him] a target for false White House website content by [t]he Defendant.” Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that “[n]on-digital documents of presidential election results proving
White House website content are not provided to [him]” from the National Archives, the
Massachusetts Archives and the “Massachusetts Secretary of Commonwealth Office.” Id. ¶ 3. In
his prayer for relief, Plaintiff asks that the Defendant “stop[] stalking and harassing” him and
provide him with “true White House website content on devices at public, government, and
private locations.” Id. at 4.
II. 	Lack of Jurisdiction
A. 	Article III Jurisdiction
This action does not present a claim over which the court may exercise jurisdiction.
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “Cases” or
“Controversies,” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, and a federal court’s “‘obligation to inquire sua sponte
into [its] jurisdiction over the matter’ exists in every case,” Fideicomiso De La Tierra Del Cano
Martin Pena v. Fortuno, 604 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 419 F.3d
3, 6 (1st Cir. 2005)).
For a case or controversy to exist, the plaintiff must have standing, or, in other words, the
plaintiff must have a “‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the claim asserted.” Pagan v. Calderon,
448 F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). “To establish
standing, a plaintiff must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or
imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action; and redressable by a favorable
Case 1:25-cv-11402-IT Document 26 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 4

3
ruling.” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 445 (2009). “For an injury to be ‘particularized,’ it ‘must
affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339
(2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119
L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). “Injuries that are too ‘widely shared’ or are ‘comparable to the common
concern for obedience to law’ may fall into the category of generalized grievances about the
conduct of government.” Lyman v. Baker, 954 F.3d 351, 361 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Becker v.
Fed. Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d 381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000)). “Article III does not contemplate a
system where 330 million citizens can come to federal court whenever they believe that the
government is acting contrary to the Constitution or other federal law.” Food & Drug Admin. v.
All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 382 (2024).
Here, Plaintiff does not state an Article III case or controversy because he does not have
standing to bring this action. Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege, inter alia, a particularized
injury arising from the allegedly false information on the website of the White House. Rather,
any injury Plaintiff has suffered or will suffer from the contents of the website is too widely
shared to affect Plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Although Plaintiff asserts that his
“career and high-publicity homelessness make [him] a target for false White House website
content” [Doc. No. 21 ¶ 2], he does not explain how any injury he suffers is particularized.
Indeed, Plaintiff claims in his motion for an emergency injunction that the allegedly false
information on the website for the White House constitutes “stalking and harassing of all
people.” [Doc. No. 22 at 1].
B. 	Sovereign Immunity of the United States
The United States (including its various branches, departments, and agencies) enjoys
immunity from suit except in those instances in which it has expressly consented to be sued. See
Case 1:25-cv-11402-IT Document 26 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 4

4
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressly
and unequivocally found in the statutory text and cannot be implied. See Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S.
187, 192 (1996). Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional, and “deprives courts of the power to hear
suits against the United States absent Congress’s express consent.” United States v. Miller, 604
U.S. 518, 527 (2025). This case does not present a claim for which the United States has waived
its sovereign immunity.
III. 	Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, the court hereby orders:
1. 	This action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2. 	All pending motions shall be terminated as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Dated: December 9, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-11402-IT Document 26 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 4