Kashamu v. U.S. Department of Justice
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1116
7th Cir.2017Background
- Buruji Kashamu, indicted in 1998 in the N.D. Ill. for conspiracy to import heroin, has remained abroad and never appeared in the U.S.; many co‑defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted.
- After discovery in England, the U.S. sought his extradition; an English magistrate refused to certify extradition because the U.S. could not prove the person was Kashamu. Kashamu later invoked that refusal to seek dismissal in U.S. courts.
- The Seventh Circuit previously rejected Kashamu’s collateral‑estoppel challenge to the indictment (United States v. Kashamu) and denied a mandamus petition asserting a speedy‑trial violation, holding he forfeited speedy‑trial rights by remaining a fugitive (In re Kashamu).
- In 2015 Kashamu, newly elected to the Nigerian Senate, sued in federal district court seeking to enjoin U.S. officers from abducting or effecting his arrest abroad under the Mansfield Amendment, 22 U.S.C. § 2291(c)(1).
- He alleged a recent incident in Lagos where Nigerian agents and two white men (whom he believed were DEA operatives) surrounded his home and attempted to arrest him on an invalid provisional warrant, and he claimed U.S. involvement and an ongoing abduction threat.
- The district court dismissed, concluding the Mansfield Amendment does not create a private right of action and that the alleged conduct was lawful under § 2291(c)(2) (U.S. presence/assistance with foreign arrests allowed with chief of mission approval).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2291(c)(1) creates a private right of action to enjoin U.S. officers from effecting arrest abroad | Kashamu: statute forbids U.S. officers from effecting arrests abroad for narcotics control, so he may sue to enjoin such abductions | Government: statute is an internal directive to federal employees, not a privately enforceable right | Held: No private right of action; Mansfield Amendment is an internal directive (statutory language and Supreme Court precedents) |
| Whether alleged U.S. participation in Nigerian arrest amounted to unlawful abduction prohibited by § 2291(c)(1) | Kashamu: U.S. agents coordinated or directed a siege/invalid arrest, amounting to an abduction risk | Government: § 2291(c)(2) permits U.S. presence and assistance in foreign arrests with chief of mission approval; alleged conduct falls within lawful assistance | Held: Alleged conduct lawful under § 2291(c)(2); not an abduction barred by the statute |
| Whether prior foreign extradition refusal bars U.S. prosecution or supports relief here | Kashamu: prior English magistrate’s refusal supports that U.S. cannot try or detain him and shows improper conduct | Government: Prior refusal did not decide guilt and does not preclude U.S. prosecution or relief; previous appellate rulings rejected collateral estoppel and speedy‑trial claims | Held: Prior proceedings do not create a private cause or bar prosecution (court affirms earlier holdings) |
| Whether factual allegations (siege, invalid warrant) state a legal claim entitling relief | Kashamu: factual narrative shows imminent and concrete threat of abduction requiring injunction | Government: Even if factual, the statutory framework and precedent do not permit private enforcement; alleged facts describe permitted cooperation | Held: Allegations insufficient to overcome statutory non‑enforceability and permitted assistance; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) (statutory directive to federal actors generally not a privately enforceable right)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (no private cause of action when statute only creates duties for agencies)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (1988) (statute interpreted as directing government conduct, not conferring private rights)
- California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287 (1981) (similar treatment of statutory provisions as instructions to agencies rather than private rights)
- United States v. Kashamu, 656 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2011) (English extradition refusal did not preclude U.S. prosecution; collateral estoppel inapplicable)
- In re Kashamu, 769 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2014) (Kashamu forfeited speedy‑trial rights by remaining a fugitive; mandamus denied)