Riley v. HSBC Bank PLC et al

Filing 13

ORDER vacating the 5 --June 18, 2018 order that grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis and that directs the marshal to serve the defendants; denying 2 --motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; denying 12 --motion for a default judgment. The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. No later than August 31, 2018, the plaintiff may amend the complaint. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 7/30/2018. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

BRANDON COURTNEY RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:18-cv-1212-T-23MAP

HSBC BANK PLC, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Appearing pro se, Brandon Courtney Riley sues (Doc. 1) half-a-dozen foreign
banks under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which provides a claim for relief to a United
States national injured “by reason of an act of international terrorism.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2333(a). A veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Riley allegedly suffered an injury
from a terrorist attack in Iraq in 2006, and Riley attempts to subject to liability
several banks that allegedly “financed Iran with billions of U.S. dollars.”
Riley claims that the ATA imposes liability on the banks based on the banks’
allegedly “admit[ting] [in other actions] to knowingly violating U.S. economic
sanctions enabling Iran to access the U.S. and international financial systems and
transfer funds” (Doc. 1 at 7), but Riley fails to allege well-pleaded facts that connect
the banks’ conduct to Riley’s injury.1 To successfully subject a defendant bank to

1

The mere labels and legal conclusions in the complaint, such as the conclusion that the
defendants “violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by providing material support to Iran,” contribute
nothing to meeting the plaintiff’s burden under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

liability under the ATA for facilitating a transaction for a state sponsor of terrorism,
the plaintiff must allege facts “demonstrating a substantial connection between the
defendant and terrorism.” Owens v. BNP Paribas, S.A., 2018 WL 3595950 at *7
(D.C. Cir. July 27, 2018) (Griffith, J.). Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.
2013) (Kearse, J.), affirms the dismissal of a complaint that attempted to subject UBS
to liability for providing money to Iran. Like the complaint in this action, the
complaint in Rothstein:
does not allege that UBS was a participant in the terrorist attacks that injured
[the plaintiff]. [The complaint] does not allege that UBS provided money to
[the terrorist organization that allegedly attacked the plaintiff]. [The
complaint] does not allege that U.S. currency UBS transferred to Iran was
given to [a terrorist organization]. And [the complaint] does not allege that, if
UBS had not transferred U.S. currency to Iran, Iran, with its billions of dollars
in reserve, would not have funded the attacks in which the plaintiffs were
injured.

Rothstein, 708 F.3d at 97. In sum, a plaintiff fails to state an ATA claim against a
bank based on an allegation that the bank facilitated a financial transaction that
benefitted Iran. Rothstein, 708 F.3d at 97; Owens, 2018 WL at *7–*8. Lacking
well-pleaded allegations of fact that reasonably permit attributing Riley’s injury to the
defendant banks’ conduct, Riley’s complaint fails to state a claim.
Riley moved (Doc. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the magistrate
judge granted (Doc. 5) the motion without finding that the complaint stated a claim
under the ATA. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2)(B)(ii), an order “shall” dismiss a
complaint that fails to state a claim. The magistrate judge ordered the marshal to
serve the foreign defendants, which service might cost taxpayers hundreds or

-2-

thousands of dollars under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Because the complaint
fails to state a claim, the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. No later than AUGUST 31, 2018, Riley may amend the complaint.
The failure to timely amend the complaint will result in the dismissal of this action
without further notice.
The June 18, 2018 order (Doc. 5) that grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and that directs the marshal to serve the defendants is VACATED, and the motion
(Doc. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
because the complaint fails to state a claim under the ATA. If Riley elects to amend
the complaint, Riley must renew the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The order resolving the renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a claim. Riley’s
motion (Doc. 12) for a default judgment is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 30, 2018.

-3-