Doe v. Zedillo Ponce de León
555 F. App'x 84
2d Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the Law of Nations, customary international law, and U.S. law arising from the 1997 Acteal massacre by Zedillo.
- Zedillo is a former President of Mexico and the named defendant living in Connecticut.
- The district court dismissed the complaint; plaintiffs concede dismissal was correct but seek leave to amend.
- The United States filed a Suggestion of Immunity in September 2012, with the State Department maintaining immunity for the former official.
- Additional allegations of personal involvement and invalidity of the immunity request were considered but would not overcome immunity.
- The Second Circuit affirms the district court, holding amendment would be futile and immunity forecloses the claims.]
- issueplaceholdernote_okay
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted given immunity | Doe argues for amendment to press non-immunized claims | Zedillo contends immunity makes amendment futile | Amendment would be futile; immunity forecloses claims. |
| Whether State Department’s Suggestion of Immunity governs and bars the suit | Doe contends immunity should be overcome by other theories | Zedillo relies on official-capacity immunity as dispositive | Immunity dispositive; suit barred. |
| Whether allegations of personal involvement could defeat immunity | Doe asserts personal involvement could void immunity | Zedillo's immunity remains despite personal claims | Personal involvement allegations do not overcome immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matar v. Dichter, 563 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2009) (State Department immunity respected; executive determinations are deferentially treated)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (S. Ct. 2010) (State Department role in immunities acknowledged; personal-immunity matters)
- Republic of Mex. v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1945) (Courts defer to government-imposed immunities in official actions)
- Ex Parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1943) (Judiciary should avoid interfering with political-branch immunity rulings)
- Isbrandtsen Tankers, Inc. v. President of India, 446 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1971) (Judicial deference to State Department immunities emphasized)