UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NOV 1 6 2009
NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON. CLERK
QIAN IDRAHIM ZHAO, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09-1986
UNKNOWN CIA AGENT, et aI.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that, in 2004 in the District of Columbia, an unidentified agent of the
Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") arrested him, searched his person and property, falsely
imprisoned him, and seized his passport, among other property. Further, plaintiff alleges that his
passport now is in the possession of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and that the
agency has refused to return it. According to plaintiff, both the unidentified CIA agent and the
DHS have violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and he demands compensation for the loss of his property and lost income, and for
emotion al distress.
It appears that plaintiffs sole means of recovery comes under the Federal Tort Claims
Act ("FCTA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTCA provides that the "United States shall be
liable [for tort claims] in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under
like circumstances." 28 U.S.c. § 2674(a). It requires that a claimant present his claim to the
appropriate federal agency prior to filing a civil action in a federal district court. McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requiring claimant to present
claim "for money damages for injury or loss of property ... caused by the negligent or wrongful
act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment ... to the appropriate Federal agency" from which written notice of the denial of the
claim has been forwarded to the claimant before a suit may be filed). It does not appear that
plaintiff has exhausted of his administrative remedies by having presented his claim first to the
appropriate agency and, absent exhaustion, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Even if plaintiff had exhausted his available administrative remedies, plaintiff cannot
prevail because "the United States simply has not rendered itself1iable under [the FTCA] for
constitutional tort claims." Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 478; see Zakiya v.
United States, 267 F. Supp. 2d 47,56 (D.D.C. 2003. Further, the FTCA expressly excludes relief
for a claim of false imprisonment. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
The Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date.
DATE: (\ I (O{O't
un~i!~U~