Navarrete v. CIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANDRES MACEDO
NAVARRETE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. H-26-1873
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Central Intelligence Agency's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Document No. 10). Having considered
the Defendant's motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court deterniines that
the Defendant's motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Prose Plaintiff Andres Macedo Navarrete ("Navarrete") brings suit against
Defendant Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"). Navarrete first alleges that his
former employer was coordinating with government agents to intercept his private
communications in September 2016.1 Navarrete further alleges that he "was
frequently followed by unidentified vehicles with heavy window tint and temporary
1 See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Document No. 10 at 1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01873 Document 13 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

paper license plates" in 2019. 2 Navarrete further alleges that he "observed continued
mind games via social media content" in 2020. 3 Navarrete further alleges that he
experienced "persistent tapping sounds within [his] apartment walls" in 2023. 4
Navarrete further alleges that he "detected an invisible gas being pumped through
the AC vents around midnight, causing acute tachycardia and respiratory difficulty"
in late 2023. 5 Finally, Navarrete alleges that on June 20, 2024 he "suffered a severe
heart rate spike after consuming bread from a local bakery" and that "these actions
are part of a coordinated, clandestine program designed to isolate and debilitate"
him. 6 The Court construes all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Based on the foregoing, on March 9, 2026, Navarrete filed suit, prose, in the
Court. 	On April 6, 2026, Navarrete filed an amended complaint in this matter. On
June 	12, 	2026, the CIA filed 	a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.7
4 Id. at 2.
7 See Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Document No.
10 at 1-8.
2
Case 4:26-cv-01873 Document 13 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " [t]he
'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breeches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F .3d 464,.
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. at 570.
"Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point
of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.'" Cuvillier
.-
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
3
Case 4:26-cv-01873 Document 13 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

III. LAW & ANALYSIS
The CIA moves to dismiss Navarrete's complaint, contending that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(l), and Navarrete fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, in
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court construes all pro
se filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
The CIA contends that this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
over Navarrete's claims as Navarrete lacks Article III standing. The CIA further
contends that Navarrete cannot identify a clear waiver of sovereign immunity that
would allow his suit against the CIA to proceed. The Supreme Court has made clear
that a plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is both concrete and
particularized, and there must exist a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct claimed of that is traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. See
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 5556, 560--61 (1992). Concrete" injuries
are those that "actually exist" and are not "abstract." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578
U.S. 330, 340 (2016).
Here, the CIA contends that the entire basis ofN avarrete' s amended complaint
are abstract experiences he allegedly encountered at his work, in his daily life, and
at his apartment over the course of the last decade. The CIA notes for the Court that
Navarrete does not allege in his complaint that the CIA is responsible for any of the
4
Case 4:26-cv-01873 Document 13 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

negative 	experiences 	Navarrete 	alleges, 	failing to 	establish· sufficient facts to
establish an actual, imminent, or plausible injury. The CIA further contends that
Navarrete has failed to identify a statute establishing that Congress has waived the
sovereign immunity of the federal government such for this Court to establish
jurisdiction. The CIA concludes its argument by noting that Navarrete fails to
identify any statute under which he brings a claim against the CIA, failing to meet
the notice pleading standard required to proceed in federal court. In response,
Navarrete provides the Court with a response comprised of a hand-written, self-
described "outline of constitutional rights violations." 8 Therein, Navarrete contends.
that he was "the victim of sustained physical and psychological torture by the CIA
resulting in physical pain, bone structure damage, and severe psychological trauma,"
and asserts violations of his First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment constitutional
rights. 9
The Court has independently reviewed the record in this case, in detail. Even
construing the complaint liberally, the Court finds that Navarrete offers no plausible
factual basis for his assertions against the CIA; failing to: (1) provide fair notice of
the specifics of his claims; (2) identify a clear waiver of sovereign immunity; (3)
8 See Plaintiff's Outline of Constitutional Rights Violations, Document No. 11 at 1-
8.
9 Id. at 4.
5
Case 4:26-cv-01873 Document 13 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

.( I • 	..
indicate what judgment or damages he seeks; or (4) raise allegations against the CIA
that rise above mere speculation. Given the Fifth Circuit's guidance that a Plaintiff
must provide enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, the
Court finds that Navarrete's claims brought against the CIA should be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant Central Intelligence Agency's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Document No. 	10) is 	GRANTED. The Court
further
ORDERS that Plaintiff Andres Macedo Navarrete 's claims against Defendant
Central Intelligence Agency are DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 'U 	day of June, 2026.
6
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-01873 Document 13 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6