SAFARINI v. ASHCROFT et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt. 10 , is hereby DENIED without prejudice; (2) Plaintiffs claims against the Kingdom of Thailand, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the Thailand National Police Agency are hereby DISMISSED; (3) The Marshals Service is hereby DIRECTED to effect service on the federal defendants and Thai Airline International in compliance with Rule 4(i)(3) and this Order on or before October 10, 2017; (4) Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to, on or before September 9, 2017, (a) provide the Clerk of the Court with addresses or other information that would permit the Marshals Service to effect service on the individual foreign defendants; and (b) show cause why the claims against those individuals should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/9/2017. (lcrdm1, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ZAID HASSAN ABD AL-LATIF MASUD
Civil Action No. 17-430 (RDM)
JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In a complaint dated September 22, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks damages
from former and current United States government officials, foreign sovereign entities, foreign
officials, and a foreign corporation for allegedly “kidnapping” him and transporting him by force
from Pakistan to the United States in September of 2001. Dkt. 1 at 5 (Compl. ¶ 16); see also id.
at 1–8. Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, and, in April 2017, the
Court (Boasberg, J.) granted his motion, Dkt. 5.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint and the Statement of Interest of the United States,
the Court now addresses a number of threshold issues:
First, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required to dismiss an action
if, “at any time,” the Court determines that the action “seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). Here, Plaintiff seeks monetary
relief against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Dkt. 1 at 1–2, 7.
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), however, “foreign state[s]” are “immune
from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States,” except as expressly provided by law. 28
U.S.C. § 1604. None of the relevant exceptions, moreover, are available on the facts alleged in
Plaintiff’s complaint. He does not allege a claim, for example, based on a commercial activity
occurring in the United States or causing a direct effect in the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1605(a)(2). Nor does he allege that Thailand, Jordan, or anyone acting on their behalves
committed a non-commercial tort “entire[ly]” in the United States. Doe v. Federal Democratic
Republic of Eth., 851 F.3d 7, 9–10 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5)); see also Dkt.
1 at 3–4 (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 15) (describing acts performed by foreign sovereign defendants in
Pakistan and Thailand). The Court must, accordingly, DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against the
Kingdom of Thailand and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.1
Second, the Prison Litigation Reform Act also provides that, where a prisoner is
proceeding in forma pauperis, “[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all process.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d). Under these circumstances, service is generally effected by the Clerk’s Office
and the United States Marshals Service. See Walton v. FBI, 533 F. Supp. 2d 107, 111 (D.D.C.
2008); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Although none of the federal defendants have appeared
in this action, the United States has filed a Statement of Interest, positing that the Marshals
Service has not yet effected service in the manner prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4. See Dkt. 9. The United States further asserts that, if service is not effected within 90 days
after the complaint was filed, the Court should dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m). Id. at 4. The Court agrees that service has not yet
been effected, but disagrees that the appropriate remedy is dismissal. See Walton, 533 F. Supp.
Although not listed in the caption of Plaintiff’s complaint, he names the “Thailand National
Police Agency” as a defendant in the “parties” section of his complaint. See Dkt. 1 at 3 (Compl.
¶ 13). To the extent this defendant is named in Plaintiff’s complaint, it, too, is immune from suit
under the FSIA, and Plaintiff’s claims against it must be DISMISSED. As Plaintiff alleges in
his complaint, the Thailand National Police Agency “operates as the primary investigative and
police agency in the nation of Thailand,” id., and under the FSIA, “agenc[ies] . . . of a foreign
state” are afforded the same sovereign immunity as the “foreign state” itself, 28 U.S.C.
2d at 111 (in forma pauperis plaintiff “should not be penalized for a court officer’s failure or
mistake in properly effecting service of process”).
As the United States observes, Plaintiff has brought suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 402 U.S. 388 (1971), against former Attorney
General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, and three FBI Special Agents. Dkt.
9 at 2. All of these federal defendants are sued in their individual capacities for actions allegedly
taken in connection with duties performed on behalf of the United States. Dkt. 1 at 4 (Compl.
¶ 14). Accordingly, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(3), the complaint must be served
on both “the United States and . . . the officer[s]” (emphasis added). In turn, to effect service on
the United States, the complaint must be served on both the “United States attorney for the
district where the action is brought” and “the Attorney General of the United States.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i), (B). Finally, service on the individual “officers” is governed by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e).
As explained in the Statement of Interest of the United States, the Marshals Service has
not yet effected service on the federal defendants in this manner. See Dkt. 9; see also Dkt. 9-1
(Gerstell Decl.). Although the Marshals Service served a mail clerk authorized to accept service
for the Attorney General in his official capacity as required by Rule 4(i)(1), that clerk was not
authorized to accept service for the federal defendants sued in their individual capacities or for
the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Dkt. 9 at 3; Dkt. 9-1 at 2 (Gerstell Decl.
¶ 5). The Court, accordingly, DIRECTS that the Marshals Service effect service on the federal
defendants in compliance with Rule 4(i)(3) and this Order, and EXTENDS the time for service
for a period of 60 days from the date of this Order pursuant to Rule 4(m).2
Plaintiff also brings claims against a foreign corporation, “Thai Airline International.” See
Dkt. 1 at 3 (Compl. ¶ 8). Plaintiff has provided an address for this defendant, see Dkt. 11 at 2,
Third, Plaintiff’s complaint also includes allegations against Ahmed Al-Hajayh, “the
Consul and station chief for the Jordanian Embassy in Pakistan,” Dkt. 1 at 4 (Compl. ¶ 15), and
various “Unknown Immigration Officials” for the “Kingdom of Thailand,” id. at 2. Based on the
existing record, and in the absence of briefing, the Court cannot conclude that these individuals
are indisputably immune from suit. In Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010), the Supreme
Court held that the immunity afforded by the FSIA does not extend to claims against foreign
officials. That does not mean that these foreign officials are necessarily subject to suit; a court
might conclude, for example, that a claim brought against a foreign official for actions taken in
his or her official capacity is, in effect, a claim against the foreign state itself, see id. at 325, or
that the foreign official is entitled to common law immunity, see id. at 324. But, absent factual
development and briefing by the parties, the Court is not in a position to resolve those issues.
Two other issues, however, present potential, threshold hurdles to Plaintiff’s claims
against the named and unnamed foreign officials. As an initial matter, although the Marshals
Service is required to serve a complaint on behalf of an in forma pauperis plaintiff, the plaintiff
“is not wholly relieved of his obligation” to assist in this process. Gonzalez v. Holder, 763 F.
Supp. 2d 145, 148 (D.D.C. 2011). In particular, the plaintiff must provide the Court with
“proper addresses for service on” the defendants. Id. at 148–49 (quoting Lee v. Armontrout, 991
F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993)); see also Thomas v. Robinson, No. 08-cv-662, 2008 WL 5110857,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2008) (“Even though the Court must assist pro se litigants proceeding
in forma pauperis with service of process, the Court cannot meet this duty when a plaintiff fails
to provide the Court with a valid name or address for a defendant.”). Here, Plaintiff has not even
and, although the Court cannot determine, on the present record, whether service at this address
would be sufficient, the Marshals Service is DIRECTED to attempt to effect service on Thai
Airline International within 60 days from the date of this Order.
identified the Thai immigration officials he seeks to sue, and thus the Marshals Service cannot
possibly effect service on them, and he has not provided an address that would permit the
Marshals Service to effect service on Ahmed Al-Hajayh, who he merely alleges was “the station
chief at the Jordanian Embassy in . . . Pakistan” almost sixteen years ago, see Dkt. 1 at 3–4
(Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15). More is required to permit the Marshals Service to attempt service.
In addition, the complaint lacks any allegations that would permit the Court to conclude
that it possesses personal jurisdiction over any of the foreign officials Plaintiff seeks to sue. The
complaint does not allege that any relevant conduct occurred in this jurisdiction or that any of
these officials have any connection to the United States. But, rather than address this issue sua
sponte, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to identify a basis for asserting
personal jurisdiction over these foreign individuals.
The Court, accordingly, ORDERS that Plaintiff (a) provide the Clerk of the Court with
addresses or other information that would permit the Marshals Service to effect service on the
individual foreign defendants; and (b) show cause why the claims against those individuals
should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall
be filed on or before September 9, 2017. If Plaintiff does not provide a timely and adequate
response, the Court will dismiss the action against these defendants without prejudice.
Fourth, Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Dkt. 10.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable
to afford counsel,” but under this court’s local rules, “the Court must consider the nature and
complexity of the action, the potential merit of the pro se party’s claims, the demonstrated
inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means, and the degree to which the
interests of justice will be served by appointment of counsel.” Lamb v. Millennium Challenge
Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing L. Cv. R. 83.11(b)(3)).
Plaintiff’s motion offers few details in support of his request, asserting only that he is
“unfamiliar with the English language” and with “America’s judicial system.” Dkt. 10 at 2.
This is not sufficient to warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not argue, for example,
that his claims are particularly complex, that he has made an exhaustive effort to obtain the
assistance of counsel, or that “any greater interest of justice will be served by appointing counsel
in this case than in any other pro se case.” Lamb, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 47. In addition, although
Plaintiff alleges that he “was not exposed to [English] prior to being . . . brought to the United
States,” Dkt. 10 at 1, Plaintiff has now been incarcerated in a U.S. prison facility for nearly
sixteen years. He was able to locate whatever assistance was necessary for him to file his
complaint, Dkt. 1, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, and this motion for
appointment of counsel, Dkt. 10. Absent some further showing of unique circumstances, the
Court cannot conclude that the appointment of counsel is justified.
After weighing the factors set forth in the local rules, the Court determines that
appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time, and, accordingly, DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion for the appointment of counsel without prejudice.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: August 9, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?