United States District Court, D. Utah
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
B. PEAD MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Lee Spruill (Plaintiff or Mr.
Spruill) filed his case against Defendants Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and Franklin Albert Smith (Smith)
(collectively Defendants). (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, Mr.
Spruill filed an Amended Complaint on June 4, 2018 (ECF No.
10), and a motion to supplement on July 5, 2018. (ECF No.
August 13, 2018, Defendant FBI July filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims (ECF No. 21), and a week later Mr.
Spruill filed his “Motion for Ruling”. (ECF No.
initial matter, there is no indication that Mr. Spruill
served his initial May 8, 2018, pleading on either Defendant
prior to filing his Amended Complaint on June 4, 2018. (ECF
No. 6.) Therefore, the court considers the Amended Complaint
to be the operative pleading. Mr. Spruill served his Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 6) on Defendant FBI on June 15, 2018. (ECF
No. 10.) Defendant Smith, however, was never served and he is
not an employee or agent of the FBI. (ECF No. 21.) As a
result, Mr. Spruill's claims Smith are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to effect timely service. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
review, Mr. Spruill's Amended “Civil Rights”
Complaint mounts a claim against Defendants under 42 U.S.C.
§1985 alleging Defendants forced him into
“premeditated child sexual slavery” as part of a
“prohibited project known as Project MK Ultra, also
known as ‘13 11 21'” in violation of the
Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 6, ¶1(a)(2).)
As a slave, Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress and
was subjected to “break-ins, kidnapping, hypnosis, drug
facilitation, neuro chips, EEG Programing, aggravated sexual
abuse[, ]” sexual assault, cross dressing, sexual
trafficking, and mind control. (ECF No. 6.) As a remedy Mr.
Spruill seeks, among other things, all profits and revenues
generated from the businesses that benefitted from his
“slavery”. (ECF No. 6 at 11.)
to a 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) referral from District
Court Judge David Nuffer (ECF No. 5), the following motions
are currently pending before this court: (1) Mr.
Spruill's motion to supplement his Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 14) and; (2) the FBI's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 21.) Based on the content, the court interprets Mr.
Spruill's “Motion for Ruling” as an
opposition to the FBI's pending motion for dismissal.
(ECF No. 26.)
Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement
Defendant FBI has not filed a formal opposition to the motion
to supplement,  and Mr. Spruill's unopposed motion is
granted. (ECF No. 14); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). In its review of
the FBI's motion for dismissal, the court considers the
allegations set forth in Mr. Spruill's supplementation.
FBI's Motion to Dismiss