Samuel Knowles v. USA
20-11810
| 11th Cir. | Nov 12, 2021Background
- Samuel Knowles, a Bahamian citizen, was extradited to the U.S., tried, and convicted on cocaine-related offenses following a 2000 indictment.
- Knowles (pro se) sued the United States, DOJ, State Department, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and three U.S. Attorneys alleging failure to provide/record his extradition treaty documents and asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Vienna Convention (Art. 36), the Fifth Amendment, and the FTCA.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding multiple defects: no valid allegations against Tillerson/Sessions, weak §1983/FTCA pleading, sovereign and prosecutorial immunity, Vienna Convention not creating individually enforceable rights, his Fifth Amendment challenge actually attacked his conviction (remediable via habeas/§2255), lack of preliminary-injunction showing, and res judicata based on a prior FOIA action seeking the same documents.
- Knowles objected and sought leave to amend but did not submit a proposed amended complaint or explain what additional facts or claims he would allege.
- The district court adopted the R&R, dismissed with prejudice, and denied leave to amend as futile. Knowles appealed the denial of leave to amend.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Knowles abandoned any challenge to the district court’s reasoning on appeal and failed to show how amendment could cure the defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend (futility) | Knowles claimed he should have been allowed to amend and would have corrected deficiencies | Defendants argued dismissal was warranted because amendment would be futile given legal bars (sovereign immunity, res judicata, no viable Bivens/FTCA claim, etc.) | Affirmed: denial of leave to amend was not an abuse; amendment would be futile and appellant abandoned rebuttal on appeal |
| Whether res judicata bars request for extradition documents (prior FOIA action) | Knowles sought the documents in this suit despite earlier FOIA litigation | Defendants maintained the FOIA action adjudicated the same request, precluding relitigation | District court (and affirmed) treated the FOIA adjudication as preclusive; Knowles could not relitigate that issue |
| Whether Vienna Convention Art. 36 creates enforceable private rights | Knowles relied on Article 36 for relief | Defendants argued the Vienna Convention does not create judicially enforceable individual rights in this context | Court accepted that the Vienna Convention did not provide an individually enforceable claim for Knowles |
| Whether Fifth Amendment/conviction challenges must proceed via habeas/§2255 rather than Bivens or FTCA | Knowles asserted due-process violations related to extradition and his conviction in this civil suit | Defendants argued constitutional challenges to the conviction/procedure must be presented in habeas/§2255 rather than as Bivens or FTCA claims | Court held challenges to the conviction/procedural extradition issues were not properly raised in Bivens/FTCA and must be pursued through habeas/§2255 remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty, 605 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (leaves to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile)
- Silberman v. Miami-Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123 (11th Cir. 2019) (futility: a more carefully drafted complaint must still state a claim)
- Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (futility standard)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (appellate abandonment doctrine; must address district court’s grounds)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (pro se litigants still abandon issues not clearly raised on appeal)