Zuzek v. United States Federal Government et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KRISTIAN ZUZEK, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-cv-04452
UNITED STATES FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff alleges that
“Unknown Persons restarted an ongoing . . . planned assault via ultrasonic sound transmitters or
similar technology, psychotically performing ritual assault causing intended economic damage
and intended legal and physical injury to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 1, Compl. at ¶ 1.
A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint
‘does not need detailed factual allegations,’ but must provide the plaintiff’s grounds for
entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when assumed to be true ‘raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.’” Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complainant must plead
“enough facts to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
This must be more than “[a]n unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” or “a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Rather, a claim is plausible on its face only “when the pleaded factual content allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04452 Document 28 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Id. at 678. While the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, legal conclusions are not
entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id.
Plaintiff fails both to allege federal jurisdiction and to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff
further fails to allege any well-pleaded facts which would support the conspiracy described in the
Complaint. Finally, and fatally, Plaintiff does not allege specific facts that suggest that the named
Defendant, the United States Federal Government, is responsible for the alleged ultrasonic sound
transmissions. Petitioner’s complaint must therefore be dismissed. Accordingly, Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order (ECF No. 27). A
Motion to Dismiss evaluates the sufficiency of the pleadings, not the additional filings Plaintiff
describes in his motion. The Court does not consider notices of subpoena when evaluating
whether to impose a stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. Additionally, as
Plaintiff’s case is now dismissed, the Motion for Relief from Order is now moot. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order (ECF No. 27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas, on this the 18th of May, 2026.
KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04452 Document 28 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2