PETER B. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al Doc.

3
Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

*
PETER B. *
(True Name And Address Classified) *
c/o Mark S. Zaid, PC *
1920 N Street, N.W. *
Suite 300 *
Washington, D.C. 20036 *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * Civil Action No. 06-________
*
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY *
Washington, D.C. 20505 *
*
and *
*
MARGARET PEGGY LYONS *
9500 Quail Pointe Ln, Apt L *
Fairfax Station, VA 22039-3317 *
*
and *
*
DOES #1-10 *
*
Defendants. *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Peter B. brings this action against defendant Central Intelligence Agency

(“CIA”), Margaret Peggy Lyons and Does #1-10 pursuant to the Federal Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et

seq., the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the CIA’s internal regulations and the U.S.

Constitution.

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 2 of 12

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

VENUE

2. Venue is appropriate in the District under 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Peter B. was formerly affiliated with the CIA in a covert status. His true

identity and past services are known to the defendants.

4. Defendant CIA is an agency as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 701.

5. Defendant Margaret Peggy Lyons was a former supervisor of Peter B. who either

acted illegally or outside of her scope of employment to retaliate against Peter B. She is

now an overt senior employee of the CIA and currently on loan to the Director of

National Intelligence John Negroponte. On July 15, 2006, Time Magazine reported that

Ms. Lyons, whose husband Donald Keyser recently pled guilty to felony charges relating

to an espionage investigation, had known that her husband had improperly kept classified

documents at home, and that she had done the same.

6. Does #1-#10 are either unknown and/or covert officials of the CIA who also

either acted illegally or outside of their scope of employment to retaliate against Peter B.

FACTS

7. In the early 1990s, Peter B. entered into a covert operational relationship with the

CIA. The exact nature of his employment status in this relationship is in dispute.

8. Peter B. asserts that at a certain point in the 1990s he became a full staff employee

possessive of all constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights as any other CIA federal

2
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 3 of 12

employee. This would include, among other things, the usual rights, privileges and

benefits that are accorded federal employees.

9. The CIA asserts Peter B. was some sort of independent contractor whose

relationship with the government can be terminated at its convenience. It further claims

documentation is in its possession that supports its position but it refuses to reveal the

information.

10. During the course of his relationship with the CIA, Peter B. incurred

approximately $30,000 - $40,000 worth of operational expenses for which he was never

reimbursed. These expenses were incurred under specific instructions of the CIA and

proper receipts were submitted.

11. On or about October 3, 2002, Peter B.’s relationship was formally terminated by

the CIA. At no time, despite multiple requests, has he ever been told the reason(s) for his

termination other than for the “convenience of the government.”

12. Upon information and belief, Margaret Peggy Lyons and Does #1-#10 took steps

based on their own personal reasons to unlawfully and/or unethically ensure Peter B.’s

relationship with the CIA was terminated. This included, but was not limited to, the

dissemination of false information concerning Peter B.

13. As a result of the CIA’s actions Peter B. was abandoned at his domestic post,

where he had been required to live by the CIA in order to receive a specific assignment,

and forced to incur significant expenses that exceeded $15,000.

14. Peter B.’s CIA sponsored health insurance and Cobra was terminated by the CIA

in or around September 2002 despite continued payment of his premiums.

3
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 4 of 12

15. The actions that led to the circumstance above were undertaken by the CIA

through the conduct of Lyons and Does #1-#10. These actions were of a personal nature,

unlawful and/or retaliatory.

16. Peter B. was never provided any administrative remedies to challenge the CIA’s

actions to terminate his employment which, as a federal employee, he was entitled to

pursue. This included, but was not limited to, the ability to appeal the CIA’s decision to

the Personnel Evaluation Board. Alternatively, even as a contractor, Peter B. was entitled

to have the CIA follow specific regulations governing termination.

17. Up to the date of the filing of this case and continuing, Peter B. has made

numerous efforts to administratively resolve these disputes. In attempting to do so he has

incurred more than $35,000 in out-of-pocket expenses that he otherwise would not be

responsible for had the CIA acted lawfully.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, APA)

18. Peter B. repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

17 above, inclusive.

19. In the early 1990s, Peter B. entered into a covert operational relationship with the

CIA. The exact nature of his employment status in this relationship is in dispute.

20. At a certain point in the 1990s Peter B. became a full staff employee possessive of

all constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights as any other CIA federal employee. This

include with respect to, among other things, the usual rights, privileges and benefits that

are accorded federal employees.

4
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 5 of 12

21. The CIA asserts Peter B. was some sort of independent contractor whose

relationship with the government can be terminated at its convenience. It further claims

documentation is in its possession that supports its position but it refuses to reveal the

information.

22. Peter B. was entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges accorded to federal

employees who work for the CIA. That included, but was not limited to, the ability to

appeal a termination determination to the CIA’s Personnel Evaluation Board.

23. Due to the CIA’s misclassification of Peter B.’s employment status, the CIA’s

action to terminate his employment in the manner it did was unlawful. Additionally, the

CIA’s misclassification of Peter B’s employment status was arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in

excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,

without observance of procedure required by law, unsupported by substantial evidence

and unwarranted by the facts thereby causing Peter B. to suffer legal wrongs under the

Administrative Procedures Act.

24. The CIA’s actions caused Peter B. significant emotional, professional and

economic harm.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(APA/U.S. CONSTITUTION – DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN
TERMINATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE)

25. Peter B. repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

17 above, inclusive.

26. In the early 1990s, Peter B. entered into a covert operational relationship with the

CIA.

5
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 6 of 12

27. At a certain point in the 1990s Peter B. became a full staff employee possessive of

all constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights as any other CIA federal employee. This

include with respect to, among other things, the usual rights, privileges and benefits that

are accorded federal employees.

28. On or about October 3, 2002, Peter B.’s employment with the CIA was

terminated. At no time, despite multiple requests, has he ever been told the reason(s) for

his termination other than for the “convenience of the government.”

29. The CIA failed to accord Peter B. any due process and denied him any

administrative rights that federal employees in the employ of the CIA must be provided

before their employment is terminated. This included, but was not limited to, the ability

to challenge this termination before a Personnel Evaluation Board.

30. The CIA, its officers and employees, to include but not limited to, Mary Margaret

Lyons and Does #1-#10, committed and undertook actions that were arbitrary, capricious

and/or an abuse of discretion pertaining to Peter B., took actions that were unwarranted

by the facts, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of internal regulations and

federal statutes, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, or in

excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right

thereby causing Peter B. to suffer legal wrongs under the Administrative Procedures Act.

31. The CIA’s actions caused Peter B. significant emotional, professional and

economic harm.

6
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 7 of 12

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(APA/U.S. CONSTITUTION – DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN
TERMINATION OF CONTRACTOR)

32. Peter B. repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

17 above, inclusive.

33. In the early 1990s, Peter B. entered into a covert operational relationship with the

CIA.

34. The CIA asserts Peter B. was some sort of independent contractor whose

relationship with the government can be terminated at its convenience. It further claims

documentation is in its possession that supports its position but it refuses to reveal the

information.

35. On or about October 3, 2002, Peter B.’s employment with the CIA was

terminated allegedly for the convenience of the government. At no time, despite multiple

requests, has he ever been told the reason(s) for his termination other than for the

“convenience of the government.”

36. The CIA is not permitted, notwithstanding any contractual language to the

contrary, to violate Peter B.’s Constitutional, statutory or regulatory rights.

37. The CIA inappropriately terminated Peter B.’s relationship in violation of CIA

regulations and the U.S. Constitution. This constituted a final agency decision. The CIA

does not possess absolute discretion in terminating contractors without either good cause

or an opportunity for a hearing.

38. The CIA, its officers and employees, to include but not limited to, Mary Margaret

Lyons and Does #1-#10, committed and undertook actions that were arbitrary, capricious

and/or an abuse of discretion pertaining to Peter B., took actions that were unwarranted

7
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 8 of 12

by the facts, unsupported by substantial evidence, in violation of internal regulations and

federal statutes, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, or in

excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right

thereby causing Peter B. to suffer legal wrongs under the Administrative Procedures Act.

39. The CIA’s actions caused Peter B. significant emotional, professional and

economic harm.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(APA – FAILURE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS OR STATUTES)

40. Peter B. repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

17 above, inclusive.

41. In the early 1990s, Peter B. entered into a covert operational relationship with the

CIA.

42. Peter B. asserts that at a certain point in the 1990s he became a full staff employee

possessive of all constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights as any other CIA federal

employee. This would include, among other things, the usual rights, privileges and

benefits that are accorded federal employees.

43. The CIA asserts Peter B. was some sort of independent contractor whose

relationship with the government can be terminated at its convenience. It further claims

documentation is in its possession that supports its position but it refuses to reveal the

information.

44. On or about October 3, 2002, Peter B.’s employment with the CIA was

terminated. At no time, despite multiple requests, has he ever been told the reason(s) for

his termination other than for the “convenience of the government.”

8
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 9 of 12

45. Regardless of whether Peter B. was a staff employee or some sort of contractor

his termination from the CIA violated regulations and/or statutes.

46. Regardless of whether Peter B. was a staff employee or some sort of contractor

the failure of the CIA to reimburse him approximately $30,000 - $40,000 worth of

operational expenses that he incurred under specific instructions of the CIA and for

which he submitted proper receipts violated CIA regulations and/or statutes.

47. Regardless of whether Peter B. was a staff employee or some sort of contractor

the CIA’s abandonment of him at his domestic post, where he had been required to live

by the CIA in order to receive a specific assignment, which forced him to incur

significant expenses that exceeded $15,000 violated CIA regulations and/or statutes.

48. Regardless of whether Peter B. was a staff employee or some sort of contractor

the actions of the CIA to cancel his sponsored health insurance and Cobra despite the fact

he had continued payment of his premiums violated CIA regulations and/or statutes.

49. The CIA, its officers and employees, to include but not limited to, Mary Margaret

Lyons and Does #1-#10, committed and undertook actions in violation of internal

regulations and federal statutes thereby causing Peter B. to suffer legal wrongs under the

Administrative Procedures Act.

50. The CIA’s actions caused Peter B. significant emotional, professional and

economic harm.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(NAME CLEARING HEARING)

51. Peter B. repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

17 above, inclusive.

52. Peter B. asserts that at a certain point in the 1990s he became a full staff employee
9
 Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 10 of 12

possessive of all constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights as any other CIA federal

employee. This would include, among other things, the usual rights, privileges and

benefits that are accorded federal employees.

53. The CIA asserts Peter B. was some sort of independent contractor whose

relationship with the government can be terminated at its convenience. It further claims

documentation is in its possession that supports its position but it refuses to reveal the

information.

54. On or about October 3, 2002, Peter B.’s relationship was formally terminated by

the CIA. At no time, despite multiple requests, has he ever been told the reason(s) for his

termination other than for the “convenience of the government.”

55. The CIA is not permitted, notwithstanding any contractual language to the

contrary, to violate Peter B.’s Constitutional rights, as set forth by the Constitution of the

United States.

56. Upon information and belief, the CIA, through the actions of Margaret Peggy

Lyons and/or Does #1-#10, unlawfully and/or unethically caused Peter B.’s relationship

with the CIA to be terminated. This included through, but was not limited to, the

dissemination of false and defamatory impressions about Peter B. throughout certain

divisions of the CIA that effectively stigmatized him.

57. Upon information and belief, the CIA, through the actions of its officials and

employees including Margaret Peggy Lyons and/or Does #1-#10 conspired to seriously

damage or destroy Peter B.’s good name which led to his termination.

10
Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 11 of 12

58. The CIA improperly, unlawfully and unconstitutionally terminated Peter B.’s

employment.

59. Despite repeated requests for the reasons underlying the CIA’s behavior, none

were ever provided. As no opportunity was ever provided Peter B. for an opportunity

to refute any allegations made against him or clear his name, he is entitled to a name-

clearing hearing and a written decision arising therefrom.

60. Peter B. has suffered actual adverse and harmful effects, including, but not limited

to, mental distress, emotional trauma, embarrassment, humiliation, and lost or

jeopardized present or future financial opportunities.

WHEREFORE, Peter B. requests that the Court award him the following relief:

(1) Declare that as of a date certain Peter B. was a staff employee of the CIA entitled

to all rights, privileges and benefits afforded federal employees;

(2) Declare that the CIA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, its internal

regulations and/or statutes governing Peter B’s termination as either a staff employee or

contractor;

(3) Declare that the CIA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, its internal

regulations and/or statutes by its failure to reimburse certain out-of-pocket operational

expenses and cancellation of his health insurance and Cobra, as well as its causing Peter

B. to incur moving and other expenses associated with the termination or his challenges

to the CIA’s actions;

(4) Require the CIA to rescind its termination decision and afford Peter B.

appropriate due process;

11
Case 1:06-cv-01652-RWR Document 3 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 12 of 12

(5) Require the CIA to reimburse Peter B. for all associated expenses to resolve these

disputes;

(6) Award Peter B. the costs of the action and reasonable attorney fees under the

Equal Access to Justice Act or any other applicable law; and

(7) grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Date: September 15, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

__________________________
Mark S. Zaid, Esq.
D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, PC
1920 N Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 454-2809

Attorney For Plaintiff

12