Safarini v. Ashcroft
Civil Action No. 2017-0430
| D.D.C. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- In 1986 Safarini participated in a Pan Am hijacking in Karachi; he was convicted in Pakistan, imprisoned for 15 years, and released in September 2001. After release he was allegedly seized in a Bangkok airport by FBI agents and transported to the U.S., where he pled guilty to numerous charges and received consecutive life sentences.
- Safarini (pro se) sued former AG John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, three FBI agents, and various foreign and corporate defendants alleging unlawful kidnapping, rendition, and related claims; earlier the court dismissed the foreign and certain other defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Remaining defendants were sued in their individual capacities; service issues were noted, but the court proceeded to review the complaint sua sponte under the PLRA screening standard.
- Safarini asserted claims under Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Eighth Amendments), the FTCA, the Alien Tort Statute and international law (Geneva Conventions), RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, various federal criminal statutes, and common-law fraud.
- The court dismissed all remaining claims sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Bivens for alleged overseas seizure and rendition (Fourth/Fifth) | Bivens permits damages for constitutional violations by federal agents for his alleged unlawful seizure in Thailand and rendition to U.S. custody. | Bivens should not be extended to non‑U.S. citizen claims for extraterritorial seizures in national‑security/foreign‑policy contexts. | Dismissed: Bivens does not extend to non‑U.S. citizen's extraterritorial Fourth/Fifth claims implicating national security and foreign affairs. |
| Eighth Amendment Bivens claim re: supermax conditions | Confinement conditions (solitary, health harms) violated Eighth Amendment. | No plausible allegations tying Ashcroft/Mueller/agents to policies or personal involvement in confinement conditions. | Dismissed: plaintiff fails to plead personal involvement sufficient to state a Bivens Eighth Amendment claim. |
| FTCA jurisdiction for alleged foreign seizure and constitutional harms | FTCA provides a tort remedy against federal actors for wrongful acts related to the seizure and confinement. | FTCA requires suing the United States (not individuals); the foreign‑country exception bars claims arising abroad; FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for constitutional torts. | Dismissed: FTCA claims fail for improper defendant, §2680(k) foreign‑country exception, and FTCA's inapplicability to constitutional torts. |
| ATS/international law, RFRA, §1985, criminal statutes, and fraud | ATS/Geneva/RFRA/§1985/criminal statutes and fraud provide remedies for unlawful rendition, deprivation of religious exercise, conspiratorial discrimination, and statutory crimes. | ATS does not recognize a private cause for single abduction lacking a well‑defined international norm; RFRA/§1985/federal criminal statutes/fraud elements are not adequately alleged or provide no private right. | Dismissed: ATS/international law claims fail under Sosa; RFRA and §1985 lack pleaded elements; criminal statutes have no private right of action; fraud insufficiently pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (extension of Bivens‑type relief to certain Fifth Amendment claims)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Eighth Amendment Bivens remedy recognized in limited circumstances)
- Meshal v. Higgenbotham, 804 F.3d 417 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (declining to extend Bivens in terrorism/national‑security cases involving extraterritorial conduct)
- United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (Fourth Amendment not applicable to nonresident aliens abroad)
- Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (ATS is jurisdictional; abduction claims not actionable absent a clearly defined international norm)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for constitutional torts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: must plead factual content making liability plausible)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (§1985(3) requires class‑based, invidiously discriminatory animus)