Safarini v. Ashcroft, Civil Action No. 2017-0430

Background

Pro se plaintiff alleges he was kidnapped in Pakistan in 2001 and forcibly transported to the U.S.; he sues U.S. officials (in their individual capacities), two foreign states (Thailand and Jordan), foreign officials, a foreign agency, and Thai Airline International seeking monetary damages.
Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis; Court reviewed complaint and a Statement of Interest filed by the United States regarding service and immunity issues.
Plaintiff sued several federal officials under Bivens; the United States flagged that the U.S. Marshals Service had not effected service in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Plaintiff named the Kingdoms of Thailand and Jordan and the Thailand National Police Agency; the Court evaluated FSIA immunity for these foreign-state defendants.
The complaint failed to identify or provide service information for several individual foreign officials and lacked allegations tying those officials to the District of Columbia or the United States (personal-jurisdiction concerns).
Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel; the Court evaluated the statutory and local-rule factors and denied the motion without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Foreign sovereign immunity under FSIA for Thailand/Jordan and Thai National Police Agency	Masud alleges those foreign states/entities participated in his rendition and seeks money damages	Foreign states and their agencies are immune under FSIA absent a statutory exception	Court dismissed claims against Thailand, Jordan, and Thailand National Police Agency for FSIA immunity (no applicable exception)
Service of process for federal defendants (Rule 4 & in forma pauperis)	Masud filed IFP and expects court officers to effect service	U.S. (Statement of Interest) says Marshals had not properly served under Rule 4 and suggested dismissal if not served within 90 days	Court found service had not been properly effected, directed Marshals to serve in compliance with Rule 4(i)(3), and extended service deadline 60 days instead of dismissing
Claims against foreign officials (identification, service, and personal jurisdiction)	Masud named certain foreign officials but gave incomplete identifying/address information and alleged conduct abroad	U.S. asserted service issues; Court noted potential immunity questions (FSIA not covering officials; common-law immunity possible)	Court required Masud to provide addresses for service and to show cause why claims against foreign officials should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; warned of dismissal without prejudice if he fails to comply
Appointment of counsel for pro se plaintiff	Masud says he lacks English and familiarity with U.S. judicial system and seeks appointed counsel	Defendants implicitly rely on discretionary standard; Court considers complexity, merit, efforts to obtain counsel, and interests of justice	Court denied appointment of counsel without prejudice—plaintiff did not meet factors or show unique need

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 851 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (FSIA tort exception requires tort to have occurred entirely in the United States)
Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) (FSIA does not displace common-law immunity for foreign officials)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 402 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Walton v. FBI, 533 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2008) (in forma pauperis plaintiffs should not be penalized for court officer failures to effect service)
Gonzalez v. Holder, 763 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2011) (IFP plaintiffs must provide addresses to assist marshals with service)
Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff must provide valid name/address for service)
Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2017) (factors for appointing counsel in pro se civil cases)