The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 VRINDER SINGH RANDHAWA, Case No. 2:25-cv-02734-DAD-CSK (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
(ECF Nos. 11, 29)
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Vrinder Singh Randhawa is proceeding without counsel. Pending before
18 the Court is Defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss the Complaint.
19 (ECF No. 11). The motion is fully briefed.1 (ECF Nos. 14 & 15.) Pursuant to Local Rule
20 230(g), the Court submitted the motion upon the record and vacated the January 13,
21 2026 hearing. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends
22 GRANTING the United States’ motion to dismiss. The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s
23 pending motion for a case management conference (ECF No. 29) in light of its
24 recommendation to dismiss this action without leave to amend.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27
1 The Court disregards Plaintiff’s unauthorized sur-reply (ECF No. 19), filed after the
28 motion was submitted.
1 I. BACKGROUND
2 A. Factual Background
3 Plaintiff commenced this action on September 24, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) In a letter to
4 the Clerk of Court accompanying the Complaint, he stated: “This complaint is
5 substantively identical to the prior action, Randhawa v. DHS, et al., Case No. 2:24-CV-
6 1540 DAD CSK PS, which was closed without adjudication of the merits. . . .
7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is refiling his claim as a new action to preserve his rights under the
8 [Federal Tort Claims Act].” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The district judge assigned to this action
9 subsequently issued an order relating this case under Local Rule 123 to Randhawa v.
10 DHS, Case No. 2:24-CV-1540 DAD CSK PS (Randhawa III).2 (ECF No. 9.)
11 The Complaint in this action (Randhawa IV) names the United States of America
12 as the sole defendant. (ECF No. 1 at 16 (“Compl.”)). Plaintiff asserts the following
13 causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
14 (3) false imprisonment and abuse of process under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA);
15 (4) Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment); and (5) arbitrary and capricious agency action
16 under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
17 Plaintiff alleges that, in 2016, 2019 and 2020, he “sought emergency travel
18 authorization[s] to visit [his] dying parents abroad” and was subject to “questioning that
19 included biased and discriminatory remarks related to [his] ethnicity.” (Compl. at 18, 26-
20 27.) “From 2014 through 2021,” Plaintiff allegedly “experienced repeated delays,
21 mishandling, and wrongful denials of immigration benefits[.]” (Id. at 22.) In October 2021
22
2 Plaintiff also filed two lawsuits in the district court in Washington, D.C. against U.S.
23 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security,
both of which were dismissed. See Randhawa v. Dept. of Homeland Security
24 (Randhawa I), 2022 WL 823067, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 19, 2022) (complaint “alleges that
the agency unreasonably delayed in granting [Plaintiff’s] applications for . . . travel
25
documents, thereby preventing him from visiting his ill and now-deceased father” and
26 that officials “treated him in a belligerent and unhelpful manner”); and Randhawa v.
Dept. of Homeland Security (Randhawa II), 2024 WL 578957, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13,
27 2024) (complaint seeks relief under the FTCA for false imprisonment, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and negligence and under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth
28 Amendments, among other claims).
1 and June 2023, Plaintiff was allegedly detained at U.S. airports in Denver and San
2 Francisco and subjected to “hostile and “humiliating” remarks. (Id. at 23-25.) Plaintiff
3 seeks damages under the FTCA and declaratory and injunctive relief for his
4 constitutional and APA claims.3
5 B. Procedural Background
6 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 24, 2025 and paid the filing fee. On
7 October 23, 2025, this action was related by order to Randhawa III and assigned to the
8 same magistrate judge, i.e., the undersigned.
9 On November 28, 2025, the United States filed the instant motion to dismiss.
10 (ECF No. 11, “Mot.”.) The United States moves to dismiss the entire action without leave
11 to amend on multiple grounds, including (1) dismissal because Randhawa IV is barred
12 by res judicata; (2) dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal
13 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); and (3) dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to
14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Id.) Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendant
15
3 By way of comparison, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the related case of
16 Randhawa III asserted
17 four causes of action: (1) violation of the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”); (2) violation of the Federal Tort
18 Claims Act; (3) violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau
19 of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and (4) intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
20
Plaintiffs generally allege “systematic procedural misconduct,
21 bad faith in immigration adjudication, retaliation though
repeated delays, obstructive responses, and racial profiling.”
22 Id. at 1. Plaintiffs allege Defendant DHS . . . has failed to
ensure its “sub-agencies, including CBP, USCIS, and TSA”
23 are adhering to fair procedures and . . . has allowed “each
sub-agency to engage in harmful practices, including racial
24 profiling, and improper screenings.” Plaintiffs further allege
Defendant DHS has “repeatedly denied Plaintiffs’ emergency
25 travel requests, including for family health crises, leading to
irreparable emotional damage.” For relief, Plaintiffs seek
26 declaratory relief, damages, and other forms of relief.
27 2025 WL 2323816, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2025) (record citations and FOIA allegations
28 omitted).
1 filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 14 & 15.) On December 16, 2025, the motion to dismiss was
2 submitted on the briefs and without hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 16.)
3 After Plaintiff filed, and later withdrew, a motion to strike (ECF Nos. 17 & 27), the
4 Court on March 4, 2026 granted Defendant’s motion “requesting that it not be required to
5 respond to . . . miscellaneous motions . . . pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.”
6 (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff’s motions included in his Complaint were vacated. (Id.)
7 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a case management and
8 scheduling conference. (ECF No. 29.) Defendant filed an opposition to the request. (ECF
9 No. 31.)
10 II. LEGAL STANDARDS
11 A. Pro Se Pleadings, Construction and Amendment
12 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and afforded the benefit of any
13 doubt. Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). Upon dismissal of any
14 claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s deficiencies and provide an
15 opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th
16 Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, no leave to amend need be given.
17 Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023).
18 To determine the propriety of a dismissal motion, the court may not consider facts
19 raised outside the complaint (such as in an opposition brief), but it may consider such
20 facts when deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023,
21 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).
22 B. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1)
23 Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a party may challenge a claim for relief for lack of
24 subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack
25 may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
26 2004) (citation omitted). A factual attack can rely on extrinsic evidence in arguing that
27 subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist. Id. (citation omitted). Once the moving party
28 presents evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must
1 furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject
2 matter jurisdiction. Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th
3 Cir. 2003).
4 C. Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
5 A claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon
6 which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if
7 it either lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal
8 theory. Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). When considering
9 whether a claim has been stated, the court must accept the well-pleaded factual
10 allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-
11 moving party. Id. However, the court is not required to accept as true conclusory factual
12 allegations contradicted by documents referenced in the complaint, or legal conclusions
13 merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559
14 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009).
15 III. DISCUSSION
16 A. Res Judicata
17 “The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits bars
18 further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Tahoe-
19 Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.
20 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The doctrine of res judicata, also
21 known as claim preclusion, is applicable when there is (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final
22 judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties. Owens v. Kaiser
23 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001). A court may sua sponte
24 dismiss an action based on the doctrine of res judicata, even though the doctrine is
25 normally raised as an affirmative defense. Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412
26 (2000).4
27
4 Some courts have found that motions to dismiss on res judicata grounds are properly
28 brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Estrada v. California
1 Here, there is an identity of claims between the instant action and Randhawa III.
2 Plaintiff himself wrote in his accompanying letter to the Clerk that the instant action is
3 “substantively identical to” Randhawa III, and he was not wrong. Both cases seek relief
4 under the FTCA for denying Plaintiff’s emergency travel requests from 2016-2020, racial
5 discrimination in 2021 and 2023, and assorted misconduct in immigration proceedings.5
6 To the extent Randhawa IV asserts new claims, e.g., under the APA, the two actions
7 arise out of the same “transactional nucleus of facts” and make almost identical factual
8 allegations regarding the United States’ alleged multi-year pattern of unlawful treatment
9 related to Plaintiff’s ethnicity and/or immigration status. See Constantini v. Trans World
10 Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982).
11 Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the Court’s dismissal of Randhawa III
12 was a final judgment on the merits. Based on an analysis of Plaintiff’s factual and legal
13 claims, the undersigned determined that the Randhawa III complaint did not state a
14 claim upon which relief could be granted. See 2025 WL 2323816, at *9 (FAC “is fatally
15 flawed because Plaintiffs do not state any claim upon which relief can be granted”),
16 findings and recommendations adopted, 2025 WL 2652314 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2025).
17 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits for
18 purposes of res judicata. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3
19 (1981); see also Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (“in federal
20 courts, a district court judgment is final for purposes of res judicata…This is so even
21 during the pendency of an appeal.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
22
Correctional Institution, 2020 WL 2770063, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2020), findings and
23 recommendations adopted, 2020 WL 4586158 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). Other courts
have found that motions to dismiss on res judicata grounds are properly brought under
24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Bullock v. Arizona Board of Regents, 2025
WL 275938, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 23, 2025). This Court need not determine whether
25
Defendant’s motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds is properly brought under Rule
26 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6) because the motion is brought pursuant to both Rule 12(b)(1)
and Rule 12(b)(6).
27 5 Plaintiff brought similar and arguably identical claims in Randhawa I and II. For
simplicity’s sake, the Court limits itself to discussing the preclusive effect of the related
28 case of Randhawa III, adjudicated in this district.
1 Finally, there is identity or privity between the parties in Randhawa III and the
2 instant action. In Randhawa III, the named defendants were Department of Homeland
3 Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Customs and
4 Border Protection (CBP), and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In that case,
5 the Court pointed that the only proper defendant in an FTCA action is the United States.
6 Randhawa III, 2025 WL 2323816, *7. Accordingly, Plaintiff named the United States as
7 the sole Defendant in the instant action. “[F]ederal agencies are in privity with the United
8 States Government for purposes of res judicata, meaning that a previous lawsuit against
9 any federal agency can have a preclusive effect on all future litigation against the
10 Government.” Middleton v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 3d 81, 87 (D.D.C. 2018).
11 Thus, the instant action is barred by res judicata and subject to dismissal.
12 B. Failure to State a Claim
13 The United States also seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a
14 claim. The Court finds that, as an independent basis for dismissal, the Complaint fails
15 state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Addressing this issue in Randhawa III, the Court
16 explained its reasoning at length and will not repeat it here. See 2025 WL 2323816, at
17 *8-9. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations do not state a
18 claim for relief under the FTCA, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or the APA. See
19 Randhawa I, 2022 WL 823067, at *2 (Congress has not waived sovereign immunity for
20 constitutional tort claims); 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 (only “final agency action for which there is
21 no other adequate remedy in a court [is] subject to judicial review” under the APA).
22 These glaring pleading deficiencies, evident throughout the Complaint, are a standalone
23 reason to dismiss it.6
24 C. Leave to Amend
25 If a court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, it
26 has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
27
28 6 The Court does not reach Defendant’s other arguments for dismissal.
1 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible
2 that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id.;
3 see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds that
4 further leave to amend would be futile, as Plaintiff has not pled a viable claim in four
5 successive federal lawsuits including the instant case. The Complaint should be
6 dismissed with prejudice.
7 D. Motion for Case Management Conference
8 In light of the Court’s recommendation to dismiss the Complaint without leave to
9 amend, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s pending motion for a case management
10 conference.
11 IV. CONCLUSION
12 Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a case
13 management conference (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.
14 Further, based upon the findings above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
15 1. The United States of America’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be
16 GRANTED;
17 2. The Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice; and
18 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.
19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
21 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
22 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
23 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
24 reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
25 days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
26 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
2
3 | Dated: April 24, 2026 C iG S$ □□
4 CHI SOO KIM
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28