United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
Dennis Saylor IV United States District Judge.
7, 2018, plaintiff Kay Sieverding filed a complaint against
the United States Department of Justice, alleging various
acts of misconduct by DOJ employees. The suit also asks the
Court to “ratify” a remand decision issued by
DOJ's Office of Information Policy (“OIP”).
August 6, 2018, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.
has a long history of bringing suit against both individuals
and the federal government. In October 2002, Sieverding and
her husband sued 36 defendants over issues stemming from a
land dispute that had begun in 1991. Sieverding v.
Colorado Bar Ass'n, 2003 WL 22400218 (D. Colo. Oct.
14, 2003). In March 2004, a United States District Judge for
the District of Colorado dismissed the Sieverdings'
claims with prejudice and enjoined them from filing lawsuits
related to the subject matter of the case in any court.
Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass'n, 469
F.3d 1340, 1342-43 (10th Cir. 2006). In 2005, the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order.
Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass'n, 126 Fed.Appx.
457 (10th Cir. 2005).
Sieverdings did not comply with that restriction. Instead,
they filed actions related to the same subject matter in
courts throughout the country. Sieverding v. Colorado Bar
Ass'n, 469 F.3d at 1343. Faced with the threat of
being held in contempt of court, Mr. Sieverding withdrew his
name from the pending cases. Id. Ms. Sieverding,
however, refused to dismiss the lawsuits and was eventually
held in contempt. She was jailed several times. Id.
January 2006, Judge Nottingham in the District of Colorado
released Sieverding from custody on the condition that she
dismiss all of her remaining lawsuits. Id. He also
entered an order prohibiting Sieverding from filing any
lawsuit, anywhere in the country, unless she was represented
by a lawyer or unless she had received approval from the
district court. Id. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Judge
Nottingham's decision, but modified the order so that it
only prohibited Sieverding from bringing actions against the
36 defendants she had sued in 2002. Id. at 1345.
Sieverding did not comply with the modified order and
continued to file actions alleging a variety of claims,
including Privacy Act violations, arising from her
incarcerations. Sieverding v. United States Dept. of
Justice, 847 F.Supp.2d 75, 79 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2012).
April 2016, Sieverding filed a Privacy Act lawsuit in this
district against the DOJ. Sieverding v. United States
Dep't of Justice, No. 1:16-cv-10688-PBS. Sieverding
alleged that the DOJ had violated the act by sending senators
incorrect information about her without checking the
information for accuracy. Sieverding v. United States
Dep't of Justice, No. 1:16-cv-10688-PBS, Amended
Complaint, Docket No. 7, ¶¶ 242-44. She also
alleged that the United States Marshals Service
(“USMS”) had violated the act by failing to
establish rules that adequately safeguarded its records.
recommendation of Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley, Chief
Judge Patti B. Saris dismissed Sieverding's suit for its
failure to identify any adverse government agency
determination and any adverse effect on Sieverding in
general. Sieverding v. United States Dep't of
Justice, No. 1:16-cv-10688-PBS, Docket Nos. 27, 37.
filed another Privacy Act lawsuit in this district against
the DOJ in June 2017. Sieverding v. United States
Dep't of Justice, No. 1:17-cv-11036-PBS. In that
suit, Sieverding contended that, among other things, USMS had
violated the Privacy Act by (1) failing “to establish
an appropriate control requiring a proper criminal case
number or proof that there was an actual criminal prosecution
was a proximate cause of the illegal imprisonment of
plaintiff in 2005, 2006, and 2007”; (2) failing to
develop rules or penalties concerning incorrect record
entries; and (3) discussing Sieverding's case with the
press, with a court, and with Sieverding herself.
Sieverding v. United States Dep't of Justice,
No. 1:17-cv-11036-PBS, Compl., Docket No. 1, ¶¶
4-61. Sieverding also alleged that USMS had failed to process
several of her administrative complaints.
acting upon recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kelley, Chief
Judge Saris dismissed the suit as barred under the doctrine
of res judicata. Sieverding v. United States
Dep't of Justice, No. 1:17-cv-11036-PBS, Docket Nos.
56, 90, 91.
filed the complaint in this action on May 7, 2018.
complaint alleges seven counts: (1) First Amendment
retaliation; (2) Due Process violation; (3) conspiracy to
violate constitutional rights; (4) false imprisonment; (5)
malicious prosecution; (6) Privacy Act violation; ...