Mensah-Yawson v. Raden
170 F. Supp. 3d 222
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Mensah‑Yawson, a Ghanaian national admitted as an F‑1 student, overstayed after completing his program and was later convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania for check‑counterfeiting; he received a sentence of time served and restitution.
- After his conviction was affirmed, DHS issued a Notice to Appear and ICE detained Mensah‑Yawson; an immigration judge later released him on bond pending removal proceedings and an application for cancellation of removal was filed.
- On November 15, 2012, Donora, Pennsylvania police stopped a vehicle carrying Mensah‑Yawson (a passenger); shortly after, federal agents Michael Radens (Homeland Security) and David Anderchak (Postal Inspector) arrived and arrested him in Pennsylvania.
- Mensah‑Yawson sued in D.D.C. raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, the FTCA, and the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), alleging unlawful search, seizure, detention and interference with removal proceedings; he sought $5 million.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: Donora defendants (Borough, police department, John Doe officers) argued lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state municipal § 1983 liability; federal defendants argued lack of personal jurisdiction over individual officers, FTCA exhaustion and sovereign‑immunity limits, and failure to state ATCA claim.
- The court granted dismissal: it found no personal jurisdiction over non‑resident Donora and federal individual defendants in D.C.; dismissed municipal § 1983 claims for failure to plead a municipal policy or custom; dismissed FTCA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because FTCA does not waive liability for constitutional torts; dismissed ATCA claim for failure to plead violation of the law of nations and noted venue problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Donora defendants and federal agents (individual capacity) | Mensah‑Yawson claimed conspiracy with D.C.‑based federal counsel and alleged the District’s long‑arm statute applies | Defendants argued they are Pennsylvania residents/offices; no purposeful availment or D.C. contacts; arrest and conduct occurred in Pennsylvania | Dismissal: no personal jurisdiction—no facts showing defendants transacted business or committed acts in D.C.; conspiracy allegations conclusory and overt acts occurred outside D.C. |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Donora/Borough) | Borough liable for officers’ unconstitutional acts (respondeat superior or conspiracy) | Borough argued § 1983 requires a municipal policy/custom to impose liability; respondeat superior insufficient | Dismissal: plaintiff failed to plead any municipal policy, custom, or affirmative link making a policy the moving force; respondeat superior not a basis for § 1983 liability |
| FTCA claims against federal defendants (official capacity) — exhaustion and scope | Mensah‑Yawson contended he followed FTCA administrative procedures (submitted claims) | Government showed no record of an administrative FTCA claim and invoked jurisdictional exhaustion requirement; also asserted conversion to FTCA with certification and sovereign‑immunity limits for constitutional torts | Dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction: plaintiff did not prove administrative exhaustion; even if exhausted, FTCA does not provide recovery for constitutional tort claims (sovereign immunity) |
| ATCA claim and venue | Mensah‑Yawson asserted a tort claim under ATCA as an alien harmed by defendants | Defendants noted ATCA requires violation of law of nations/treaty and venue is improper here; underlying acts occurred in Pennsylvania | Dismissal: ATCA claim inadequately pleaded (no law‑of‑nations or treaty violation alleged); venue likely improper for claims arising in Pennsylvania |
Key Cases Cited
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, 466 U.S. 408 (personal jurisdiction general contacts analysis)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process standard)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (foreseeability and being haled into court)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment analysis)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (purposeful availment considerations)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (FTCA does not waive immunity for constitutional torts)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (administrative exhaustion under FTCA is jurisdictional)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)