867 F. Supp. 2d 125
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue under the Alien Tort Statute and the Constitution for purported non-consensual medical experimentation in Guatemala from 1946 to 1953.
- Guatemala Study involved deliberate infection with STDs; subjects included prisoners, troops, psychiatric patients, and sex workers who did not consent.
- Presidential Commission report and Obama’s 2010 letter prompted amended complaints; case stayed pending the report and resumed after its release.
- Defendants include eight current federal officials and one PAHO director; plaintiffs seek ATS, due process, and Eighth Amendment claims.
- United States moves to substitute itself under the Westfall Act; other dispositive motions seek dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds.
- Court grants motions to dismiss, denies default judgment against Roses, and resolves immunity defenses under Westfall Act, IOIA, and Bivens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Westfall Act substitution validity | Plaintiffs challenge scope-of-employment to rebut certification. | Certification shows employees acted within scope; substitution proper. | Substitution proper; plaintiffs cannot rebut with predecessor liability. |
| ATS claims barred by FTCA foreign-country exception | Exception should not bar all ATS claims; carve-out requested. | Foreign-country exception bars all claims arising in a foreign country. | FTCA foreign-country exception bars ATS claims; lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Bivens claims against federal defendants | Requests damages and constitutional remedies against officials. | Plaintiffs lack personal involvement; successor liability not viable. | Bivens claims dismissed for lack of personal involvement and failed successor liability theory. |
| IOIA immunity for Roses ( PAHO Director ) | PAHO/WHO waivers may apply to allow suit against Roses. | Roses enjoys IOIA immunity; no express waiver by PAHO/WHO. | Roses immune under IOIA; no express waiver appropriate to defeat immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (U.S. 2007) (Westfall Act immunity for employees acting within scope of employment)
- Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Westfall Act framework; prima facie evidence of scope; limited discovery)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (FTCA exceptions, foreign-country limitation on liability)
- Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (foreign-country exception and jurisdictional constraints under FTCA)
- Mendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (express vs. nonspecific waivers of IOIA immunity; waiver concepts)
- Vila v. Inter-American Invest. Corp., 570 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (charter waivers and scope of immunity analysis under IOIA)
- Inversora Murten, S.A. v. Energoprojekt-Niskogradnja Co., 264 Fed. App’x 13 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (IOIA immunity and organizational immunity scope)
- Weidner v. Int’l Tel. Satellite Org., 392 A.2d 508 (D.C. 1978) (retroactive immunization and timing of immunity in IOIA context)