IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

YONAS FIKRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; ERIC
HOLDER, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the United States;
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JOHN KERRY, in
his official capacity as Secretary of
State; JAMES B. COMEY, in his official
capacity as Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; CHRISTOPHER
M. PIEHOTA, in his official capacity
as Director of the FBI Terrorist
Screening Center; DAVID NOORDELOOS, an
employee of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in his individual
capacity; and JOHN DOE I, also known
as JASON DUNDAS, an employee of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, in
his individual capacity,
Defendants.
3:13-cv-00899-BR
OPINION AND ORDER

1 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 30 Page ID#: 294
GADEIR I. ABBAS
Counci l on Amer i can- I sl ami c Rel at i ons
453 New J er sey Avenue, S. E.
Washi ngt on, D. C. 2003
( 720) 291- 0425
BRANDON B. MAYFIELD
3950 S. W. 185
t h
Avenue
Beaver t on, Or egon 97007
( 503) 941- 5101
THOMAS H. NELSON
P. O. Box 1211
Wel ches, Or egon 97067- 1211
( 503) 622- 3262
At t or neys f or Pl ai nt i f f
ERIC HOLDER
Uni t ed St at es At t or ney Gener al
BRIGHAM J. BOWEN
Tr i al At t or ney
Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce
Ci vi l Di vi si on, Feder al Pr ogr ams Br anch
P. O. Box 883
Washi ngt on, DC 20044
( 202) 514- 6289
At t or neys f or Def endant s
BROWN, Judge.
Thi s mat t er comes bef or e t he Cour t on t he Mot i on ( #21) t o
Di smi ss f or Fai l ur e t o St at e a Cl ai mand f or Lack of J ur i sdi ct i on
f i l ed by Def endant s Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( FBI ) , Er i c
Hol der , Depar t ment of St at e, J ohn Ker r y, J ames B. Comey, and
Chr i st opher M. Pi ehot a ( col l ect i vel y r ef er r ed t o as Of f i ci al
2 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 30 Page ID#: 295
Capaci t y Def endant s) .
1

For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he Cour t GRANTS t he Of f i ci al
Capaci t y Def endant s Mot i on ( #21) t o Di smi ss f or Fai l ur e t o St at e
a Cl ai mand f or Lack of J ur i sdi ct i on; DISMISSES with prejudice
Cl ai mOne; DISMISSES without prejudice Cl ai ms Two, Fi ve, and Si x
wi t h l eave t o f i l e a Second Amended Compl ai nt consi st ent wi t h
t hi s Opi ni on and Or der no l at er t han June 27, 2014; and di r ect s
t hese Def endant s t o f i l e t hei r r esponsi ve pl eadi ng t o t he Second
Amended Compl ai nt no l at er t han July 25, 2014.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s move t o di smi ss pur suant t o
Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 1) and 12( b) ( 6) t he cl ai ms
agai nst t hemi n Pl ai nt i f f Yonas Fi kr e s Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt
( FAC) ( #10) on t he gr ounds t hat Pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o pr esent a
r i pe case or cont r over sy i n Cl ai ms One, Fi ve, and Si x; f ai l ed t o
exhaust avai l abl e admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es wi t h r espect t o Cl ai ms
One, Fi ve, and Si x; and f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai mon whi ch r el i ef
1
Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 25( d) , J ames
B. Comey i s aut omat i cal l y subst i t ut ed f or Rober t S. Muel l er I I I ,
and Chr i st opher M. Pi ehot a i s aut omat i cal l y subst i t ut ed f or
Ti mot hy Heal y.
3 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 3 of 30 Page ID#: 296
may be gr ant ed i n Cl ai ms One, Two, Fi ve, and Si x.
2
On Mar ch 14, 2014, t he Cour t hear d or al ar gument on t he
Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s Mot i on. At or al ar gument t he
Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s acknowl edged t hei r ar gument s
concer ni ng exhaust i on of admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es ar e no l onger
appl i cabl e because Pl ai nt i f f exhaust ed hi s admi ni st r at i ve
r emedi es si nce f i l i ng t he FAC, and Pl ai nt i f f advi sed t he f act s
concer ni ng exhaust i on wi l l be i ncl uded i n hi s Second Amended
Compl ai nt t o be f i l ed f ol l owi ng t hi s Opi ni on and Or der .
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t need not addr ess t he par t i es ar gument s
concer ni ng exhaust i on of admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es.
The Cour t t ook t he r emai ni ng i ssues i n Of f i ci al Capaci t y
Def endant s Mot i on under advi sement at t he concl usi on of or al
ar gument .
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t he f ol l owi ng per t i nent f act s i n hi s FAC:
I. The No-Fly List
The FBI i s r esponsi bl e f or devel opment and mai nt enance of
t he No- Fl y Li st whi ch i dent i f i es i ndi vi dual s who ar e pr ohi bi t ed
2
Davi d Noor del oos and J ason Dundas, t he def endant s sued i n
t hei r i ndi vi dual capaci t i es, have not yet been ser ved and,
t her ef or e, ar e not cur r ent l y par t i es t o t hi s l i t i gat i on. Thus,
Cl ai ms Thr ee and Four ar e not at i ssue i n t he Mot i on t o Di smi ss
because t hose cl ai ms r el at e excl usi vel y t o Noor del oos and Dundas.
4 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 4 of 30 Page ID#: 297
f r omf l yi ng i nt o, out of , or over t he Uni t ed St at es, or i nt o,
out of , or over Canadi an ai r space, by commer ci al ai r l i nes.
II. Plaintiffs Interrogation and Inclusion on the No-Fly List
Pl ai nt i f f i s a 33- year - ol d nat ur al i zed Amer i can ci t i zen of
Er i t r ean descent who was a r esi dent of Por t l and, Or egon,
begi nni ng i n 2006. I n l at e 2009 Pl ai nt i f f deci ded t o use hi s
exper i ence wor ki ng f or a cel l ul ar t el ephone company i n t he Uni t ed
St at es t o pur sue t he busi ness of di st r i but i ng and sel l i ng
consumer el ect r oni c pr oduct s i n East Af r i ca, and, accor di ngl y,
Pl ai nt i f f t r avel ed t o Sudan wher e some of hi s ext ended f ami l y
l i ves. Once i n Sudan Pl ai nt i f f i nf or med t he Uni t ed St at es
Embassy i n Khar t oumof hi s pr esence i n t he count r y and of hi s
i nt ent i on t o pur sue busi ness oppor t uni t i es t her e. Based on
encour agement f r omEmbassy per sonnel , Pl ai nt i f f began t he pr ocess
of obt ai ni ng a Sudanese busi ness l i cense.
On Apr i l 21, 2010, Pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved a t el ephone cal l f r om
t he Embassy r equest i ng Pl ai nt i f f t o cont act Def endant Noor del oos,
who r epr esent ed hi msel f as an Embassy of f i ci al . Pl ai nt i f f cal l ed
Noor del oos, who i nvi t ed Pl ai nt i f f t o a l uncheon at t he Embassy
t he f ol l owi ng day t o di scuss saf et y dur i ng a per i od of pol i t i cal
t ur moi l i n Sudan.
The next mor ni ng Pl ai nt i f f ar r i ved at t he Embassy and was
met by Noor del oos and Def endant J ohn Doe I , who i nt r oduced
5 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 5 of 30 Page ID#: 298
hi msel f as J ason Dundas.
3
Noor del oos and Dundas escor t ed
Pl ai nt i f f t o a smal l meet i ng r oom, shut t he door , posi t i oned
t hemsel ves bet ween Pl ai nt i f f and t he door , and i nf or med Pl ai nt i f f
t hat t hey wor ked f or t he FBI Fi el d Of f i ce i n Por t l and.
When he was t ol d Noor del oos and Dundas wer e FBI agent s f r om
Por t l and, Pl ai nt i f f r equest ed t o be r epr esent ed by hi s l egal
counsel dur i ng any i nt er r ogat i on. Noor del oos, however , i nf or med
Pl ai nt i f f t hat he coul d not r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es t o conf er
wi t h hi s l egal counsel because Pl ai nt i f f had been pl aced on t he
No- Fl y Li st .
The ensui ng i nt er r ogat i on l ast ed sever al hour s unt i l t he end
of t he busi ness day. Thr oughout t he cour se of t he i nt er r ogat i on
Noor del oos and Dundas quest i oned Pl ai nt i f f about t he As- Saber
Mosque i n Por t l and wher e Pl ai nt i f f had at t ended pr ayer ser vi ces.
I n addi t i on, Noor del oos and Dundas quest i oned Pl ai nt i f f about t he
sour ce of f i nanci al suppor t f or hi s busi ness endeavor s and t ol d
hi mt hat sanct i ons made hi s busi ness act i vi t i es i n Sudan i l l egal .
Fi nal l y, Noor del oos asked Pl ai nt i f f t o be an i nf or mant f or t he
FBI i n exchange f or subst ant i al compensat i on and r emoval f r om
t he No- Fl y Li st . Pl ai nt i f f r esponded he di d not wi sh t o become
an i nf or mant . At t he end of t he busi ness day Noor del oos
3
For pur poses of t hi s Opi ni on, t he Cour t r ef er s t o J ohn Doe
I as Dundas.
6 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 6 of 30 Page ID#: 299
suggest ed t hey r esume t he di scussi on t he f ol l owi ng day.
Pl ai nt i f f agr eed.
The f ol l owi ng mor ni ng Pl ai nt i f f cal l ed Noor del oos on t he
t el ephone and i nf or med hi mt hat he di d not wi sh t o meet f ur t her
wi t h Dundas and Noor del oos. Noor del oos became agi t at ed when
Pl ai nt i f f st at ed he di d not want t o be an i nf or mant . Noor del oos
concl uded t he conver sat i on by t el l i ng Pl ai nt i f f : Whenever you
want t o go home you come t o t he embassy. On May 4, 2010, a
l i t t l e mor e t han a week af t er t hei r f i nal conver sat i on,
Noor del oos emai l ed Pl ai nt i f f as f ol l ows:
Yonas,
Thanks f or meet i ng wi t h us l ast week i n Sudan.
Whi l e we hope t o get your si de of i ssues we keep
hear i ng about , t he choi ce i s your s t o make. The
t i me t o hel p your sel f i s now.
Be saf e i n Sudan,
Dave Noor del oos
FAC 28, p. 8. Pl ai nt i f f r emai ned i n Khar t oumf or appr oxi mat el y
t wo mont hs dur i ng whi ch t i me he not i ced he was bei ng f ol l owed by
per sons he assumed t o be associ at ed wi t h t he Sudanese secr et
pol i ce. He l ear ned f r omacquai nt ances t hat si mi l ar i ndi vi dual s
had been i nqui r i ng about hi mand hi s act i vi t i es. Pl ai nt i f f l ef t
Sudan on appr oxi mat el y J une 15, 2010.
On appr oxi mat el y Sept ember 15, 2010, Pl ai nt i f f t r avel ed t o
t he Uni t ed Ar ab Emi r at es ( UAE) t o pur sue si mi l ar busi ness
i nt er est s. Pl ai nt i f f obt ai ned a r esi dency per mi t i n t he UAE i n
7 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 7 of 30 Page ID#: 300
or der t o conduct busi ness, and he i nvest ed subst ant i al f i nanci al
r esour ces pr ovi ded by hi s f ami l y t o t hat end.
On t he eveni ng of J une 1, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f was f or ci bl y t aken
f r omhi s home by per sons he l at er l ear ned wer e Emi r at i secr et
pol i ce. The pol i ce sei zed some of Pl ai nt i f f s per sonal pr oper t y,
bl i ndf ol ded hi m, and pl aced hi mi n a heavi l y ai r - condi t i oned car .
Pl ai nt i f f s capt or s dr ove hi mf or appr oxi mat el y t wo hour s t o a
bui l di ng wher e he was housed i n a heavi l y ai r - condi t i oned,
wi ndowl ess cel l wi t h onl y a bed.
The next mor ni ng Pl ai nt i f f was l ed t o a r oomi n whi ch he
woul d under go t he f i r st of r epeat ed i nt er r ogat i ons dur i ng 106
days of i mpr i sonment . Dur i ng t hese i nt er r ogat i ons Pl ai nt i f f was
bl i ndf ol ded whi l e he was quest i oned i n Engl i sh f or ext ended
per i ods of t i me. Per i odi cal l y Pl ai nt i f f was abl e t o peek beneat h
hi s bl i ndf ol d and vi ew t he shoes and l ower t or sos of hi s
i nt er r ogat or s, some of whomwor e West er n dr ess.
The subst ance of t he i nt er r ogat i ons f ocused on t he
act i vi t i es, f undr ai si ng, and l eader shi p of t he As- Saber Mosque.
I n addi t i on, t he i nt er r ogat or s quest i oned Pl ai nt i f f about
ci r cumst ances and event s t hat [ P] l ai nt i f f had di scl osed t o
Noor del oos and Dundas i n Khar t oum, and t he i nt er r ogat or s ur ged
Pl ai nt i f f numer ous t i mes t o cooper at e wi t h t he FBI by becomi ng
an i nf or mant .
8 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 8 of 30 Page ID#: 301
Pl ai nt i f f was subj ect ed t o mul t i pl e t hr eat s and beat i ngs
t hr oughout t he cour se of hi s conf i nement . I n r esponse t o hi s
r esi st ance t o answer i ng quest i ons, Pl ai nt i f f was st r uck on t he
head. Besi des bei ng hi t on t he head, Pl ai nt i f f was r epeat edl y
beat en on hi s back, l egs, and t he sol es of hi s f eet wi t h bat ons
and pl ast i c pi pes. When Pl ai nt i f f r et ur ned t o hi s cel l at t he
end of t he f i r st day of i nt er r ogat i on, hi s bed had been r emoved
and Pl ai nt i f f sl ept on t he f l oor of hi s ver y col d cel l . When
Pl ai nt i f f asked hi s i nt er r ogat or s on sever al occasi ons whet her
hi s conf i nement and i nt er r ogat i on wer e at t he r equest of t he FBI ,
t he i nt er r ogat or s sever el y beat Pl ai nt i f f .
On J une 14, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f t ook a l i e- det ect or t est
dur i ng whi ch he was quest i oned about whet her hi s f i nanci al
ar r angement s i nvol ved sol i ci t i ng f unds f or al - Qaeda, but he was
not asked about t he As- Saber Mosque. That eveni ng t he bed was
r et ur ned t o hi s cel l .
On J une 20, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f s f ami l y l ear ned f r om
Pl ai nt i f f s nei ghbor s i n t he UAE t hat he was mi ssi ng.
Pl ai nt i f f s counsel not i f i ed t he Uni t ed St at es Consul at e i n Abu
Dhabi t hat Pl ai nt i f f had di sappear ed af t er bei ng pl aced i n an SUV
of t he t ype commonl y used by t he Emi r at i secr et pol i ce.
The i nt er r ogat i ons and beat i ngs cont i nued unt i l J ul y 28,
2011, when Pl ai nt i f f met wi t h a Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of St at e
empl oyee named Mar wa. Bef or e t he meet i ng Pl ai nt i f f s capt or s
9 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 9 of 30 Page ID#: 302
i nst r uct ed hi mnot t o di scl ose hi s mi st r eat ment . Dur i ng t he
i nt er vi ew guar ds t ol d Mar wa t hat Pl ai nt i f f was bei ng hel d wi t hout
char ge as par t of an ongoi ng i nvest i gat i on. Despi t e Pl ai nt i f f
l osi ng appr oxi mat el y 30 pounds si nce hi s ki dnappi ng, Mar wa f ound
Pl ai nt i f f was i n good heal t h. Pl ai nt i f f at t empt ed by f aci al
cont or t i ons and wi nks t o i ndi cat e t hat he was under dur ess, but
Mar wa ei t her di d not not i ce or di sr egar ded t he si gnal s.
The i nt er r ogat i ons and beat i ngs r esumed af t er Mar wa s vi si t .
Fol l owi ng t he meet i ng i nt er r ogat or s r epeat edl y t ol d Pl ai nt i f f
t hat he woul d be r el eased soon or t omor r ow, but hi s r el ease
was not f or t hcomi ng. Pl ai nt i f f consi der ed r ef usi ng f ood i n an
at t empt at sui ci de, but he was t ol d he woul d be f or ce- f ed.
Near t he end of hi s det ent i on Pl ai nt i f f agai n asked an
i nt er r ogat or whet her t he FBI had r equest ed hi s det ent i on and
i nt er r ogat i on. Thi s t i me, however , t he i nt er r ogat or conf i r med
t he FBI had made such a r equest and t hat Amer i can and Emi r at i
aut hor i t i es wor k cl osel y on a number of such mat t er s.
On Sept ember 14, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f was t ol d he woul d be
r el eased t hat day. I nt er r ogat or s t ook money f r omPl ai nt i f f s
wal l et t o pur chase an ai r l i ne t i cket back t o t he Uni t ed St at es,
but t hey wer e t ol d Pl ai nt i f f woul d not be al l owed t o r et ur n t o
t he Uni t ed St at es by ai r because he was on t he No- Fl y Li st .
Thus, Pl ai nt i f f chose t o f l y t o Sweden wher e, i n t he bel i ef t hat
he mi ght st i l l be i n danger of abuse i n count r i es t hat condone
10 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 10 of 30 Page ID#: 303
t or t ur e, Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed an appl i cat i on f or asyl um. Based on
hi s exper i ence wi t h St at e Depar t ment of f i ci al s i n Khar t oumand
t he UAE, Pl ai nt i f f does not bel i eve he can r el y on t he St at e
Depar t ment t o pr ot ect or t o assi st hi mwhi l e over seas.
III. Plaintiffs Claims
Pl ai nt i f f asser t s f our cl ai ms agai nst t he Of f i ci al Capaci t y
Def endant s:
A. Claim One
I n Cl ai mOne Pl ai nt i f f al l eges hi s pl acement by al l
Def endant s on t he No- Fl y Li st whi l e abr oad pr event ed hi m, a
Uni t ed St at es ci t i zen, f r omr et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es and
ef f ect i vel y st r i pped [ P] l ai nt i f f of hi s r i ght s, pr i vi l eges, and
i mmuni t i es as a ci t i zen, t her eby ef f ect i vel y r ender i ng hi m
st at el ess i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed
St at es Const i t ut i on. FAC 55, p. 15.
Pl ai nt i f f seeks a decl ar at i on t hat Def endant s r ender ed hi m
st at el ess by denyi ng hi mhi s r i ght as a ci t i zen t o r et ur n t o t he
Uni t ed St at es, and Pl ai nt i f f seeks an i nj unct i on r equi r i ng
Def endant s not r ender Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens st at el ess by
pr event i ng t hemf r omr et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es t hr ough
pl aci ng t hemon t he No- Fl y Li st once out si de of t he Uni t ed
St at es. FAC at pp. 18- 19.
11 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 11 of 30 Page ID#: 304
B. Claim Two
I n Cl ai mTwo Pl ai nt i f f al l eges al l Def endant s enl i st ed
f or ei gn i nt er medi ar i es t o t or t ur e [ P] l ai nt i f f at t hei r behest .
The f or ei gn i nt er medi ar i es wer e di r ect ed t o t or t ur e [ P] l ai nt i f f ,
and [ P] l ai nt i f f was t or t ur ed i n accor dance wi t h [ D] ef endant s
i nst r uct i ons. FAC 58, pp. 15- 16.
Pl ai nt i f f seeks a decl ar at i on t hat Def endant s
par t i ci pat i on i n t he act i vi t i es t hat l ed t o Pl ai nt i f f s
i mpr i sonment , i nt er r ogat i on, and t or t ur e at t he hands of UAE
aut hor i t i es i s a deni al of [ P] l ai nt i f f s subst ant i ve due pr ocess
r i ght s under t he Fi f t h Amendment and a deni al of hi s r i ght as a
ci t i zen under t he Four t eent h Amendment , and he seeks an
i nj unct i on r equi r i ng Def endant s not i nst i gat e or f aci l i t at e t he
t or t ur e of Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens i n f or ei gn count r i es. FAC at
pp. 18- 19.
C. Claim Five
I n Cl ai mFi ve Pl ai nt i f f al l eges Def endant s Hol der , FBI ,
Comey, and Pi ehot a vi ol at ed Pl ai nt i f f s subst ant i ve due- pr ocess
r i ght t o r et ur n t o hi s homel and once abr oad by pl aci ng hi mon
t he No- Fl y Li st .
4
FAC 67, p. 17.
Pl ai nt i f f seeks a decl ar at i on t hat hi s pl acement on t he
4
Pl ai nt i f f al so l i st ed t he FBI Ter r or i st Scr eeni ng Cent er
( TSC) as a par t i ci pant i n Cl ai ms Fi ve and Si x, but Pl ai nt i f f di d
not name t he TSC as a def endant i n hi s FAC.
12 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 12 of 30 Page ID#: 305
No- Fl y Li st i n a manner t hat pr event ed hi mf r omr et ur ni ng t o hi s
homel and once abr oad deni ed Pl ai nt i f f hi s subst ant i ve due-
pr ocess r i ght s under t he Fi f t h Amendment . I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i f f
seeks an i nj unct i on pr ohi bi t i ng Def endant s f r ompr event i ng
Pl ai nt i f f f r omr et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es i n t he event of
f ut ur e i nt er nat i onal t r avel and r equi r i ng Def endant St at e
Depar t ment t o est abl i sh i nf or mat i on and pr ot ocol s t o assi st
Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens t o r et ur n t o t hei r homel and who, once
abr oad, ar e pl aced i n t he No- Fl y Li st . FAC at pp. 18- 20.
D. Claim Six
I n Cl ai mSi x Pl ai nt i f f al l eges Def endant s Hol der , FBI ,
Comey, and Pi ehot a vi ol at ed Pl ai nt i f f s pr ocedur al due- pr ocess
r i ght s by pl aci ng [ P] l ai nt i f f on t he FBI - mai nt ai ned, secr et No-
Fl y Li st wi t hout i nf or mi ng hi mof such pl acement , t he basi s f or
hi s i ncl usi on on t he No- Fl y Li st , t he means of r emovi ng hi s name
f r omt he No- Fl y Li st , or pr ovi di ng an i ndependent f or umi n whi ch
[ P] l ai nt i f f mi ght secur e t he r emoval of hi s name f r omt he No- Fl y
Li st . FAC 69, pp. 17- 18.
Pl ai nt i f f seeks a decl ar at i on t hat t he pl acement of hi s
name on t he No- Fl y Li st wi t h no not i ce t her eof , wi t h no r easons
gi ven t her ef or , and wi t h no oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t he basi s
f or such pl acement i s a deni al of pr ocedur al due pr ocess under
t he Fi f t h Amendment . Pl ai nt i f f al so seeks an i nj unct i on
r equi r i ng Def endant s t o pr ovi de [ P] l ai nt i f f not i ce of pl acement
13 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 13 of 30 Page ID#: 306
of hi s name on t he No- Fl y Li st , pr ovi de [ P] l ai nt i f f wi t h t he
r easons f or such pl acement , and pr ovi de [ P] l ai nt i f f an
oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge or r ebut t he r easons t her ef or . FAC at
pp. 18- 19.
STANDARDS
I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
When deci di ng a mot i on t o di smi ss f or l ack of subj ect - mat t er
j ur i sdi ct i on under Rul e 12( b) ( 1) , t he cour t may consi der
af f i davi t s and ot her evi dence suppor t i ng or at t acki ng t he
pl ai nt i f f s j ur i sdi ct i onal al l egat i ons. Autery v. U.S., 424 F. 3d
944, 956 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2005) . The cour t may per mi t di scover y t o
det er mi ne whet her i t has j ur i sdi ct i on. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys.
Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F. 2d 1280, 1285 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 1977) . The
cour t has br oad di scr et i on i n gr ant i ng di scover y and may nar r owl y
def i ne t he l i mi t s of such di scover y. Id. When t he cour t
" r ecei ves onl y wr i t t en submi ssi ons, t he pl ai nt i f f need onl y make
a prima facie showi ng of j ur i sdi ct i on. " Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio
Int'l Interlink, 284 F. 3d 1007, 1019 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2002) . Pl ai nt i f f
has t he bur den t o est abl i sh t hat t he cour t has subj ect - mat t er
j ur i sdi ct i on. Ass'n of American Med. Coll. v. United States, 217
F. 3d 770 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2000) .
14 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 14 of 30 Page ID#: 307
II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
To sur vi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , t he pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt must cont ai n
suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er , accept ed as t r ue, t o st at e a cl ai mt o
r el i ef t hat i s pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
550 U. S. 544, 545 ( 2007) . A cl ai mhas f aci al pl ausi bi l i t y when
t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f act ual cont ent t hat al l ows t he cour t t o
dr aw t he r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant i s l i abl e f or
t he mi sconduct al l eged. Id. at 556. The pl ausi bi l i t y st andar d
i s not aki n t o a pr obabi l i t y r equi r ement , but i t asks f or mor e
t han a sheer possi bi l i t y t hat a def endant has act ed unl awf ul l y.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Twombly, 550
U. S. at 546) . When a compl ai nt pl eads f act s t hat ar e mer el y
consi st ent wi t h a def endant ' s l i abi l i t y, i t st ops shor t of t he
l i ne bet ween possi bi l i t y and pl ausi bi l i t y of ent i t l ement t o
r el i ef . Iqbal, 556 U. S. at 678 ( ci t i ng Twombly, 550 U. S. at
557) .
The pl eadi ng st andar d under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e
8 does not r equi r e det ai l ed f act ual al l egat i ons, but i t
demands mor e t han an unador ned, t he- def endant - unl awf ul l y- har med-
me accusat i on. Iqbal, 556 U. S. at 678 ( quot i ng Twombly, 550
U. S. at 555) . See also Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2) . A pl eadi ng
t hat of f er s l abel s and concl usi ons or a f or mul ai c r eci t at i on
of t he el ement s of a cause of act i on wi l l not do. Id. ( ci t i ng
15 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 15 of 30 Page ID#: 308
Twombly, 550 U. S. at 555) . A compl ai nt al so does not suf f i ce i f
i t t ender s naked asser t i on[ s] devoi d of f ur t her f act ual
enhancement . Id. at 557.
DISCUSSION
The Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s move t o di smi ss Cl ai ms One,
Fi ve, and Si x pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e
12( b) ( 1) f or l ack of subj ect - mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on on t he gr ound
t hat Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons as t o t hose cl ai ms do not pr esent a
r i pe case or cont r over sy. I n addi t i on, t he Of f i ci al Capaci t y
Def endant s move t o di smi ss Cl ai ms One, Two, Fi ve, and Si x
pur suant t o Rul e 12( b) ( 6) f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai mon whi ch
r el i ef may be gr ant ed.
I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s move t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s
Cl ai ms One, Fi ve, and Si x r el at i ng t o t he No- Fl y Li st on t he
gr ound t hat Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o al l ege f act s suf f i ci ent t o
est abl i sh a r i pe case or cont r over sy.
Ri peness i s one component of t he Ar t i cl e I I I case or
cont r over sy r equi r ement desi gned t o pr event t he cour t s,
t hr ough avoi dance of pr emat ur e adj udi cat i on, f r oment angl i ng
t hemsel ves i n abst r act di sagr eement s. Oklevueha Native Am.
Church of Haw., Inc. v. Holder, 676 F. 3d 829, 835 ( 9
t h
Ci r .
2012) ( quot i ng Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 148 ( 1967) ) .
16 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 16 of 30 Page ID#: 309
The r i peness i nqui r y cont ai ns bot h a const i t ut i onal and a
pr udent i al component . Id. ( quot i ng Portman v. Cnty. of Santa
Clara, 995 F. 2d 898, 902 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 1993) ) .
A. Constitutional Ripeness
The const i t ut i onal component of r i peness over l aps wi t h t he
i nj ur y i n f act anal ysi s f or Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng. Wolfson v.
Brammer, 616 F. 3d 1045, 1058 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2010) . Whet her f r amed as
an i ssue of st andi ng or r i peness, t he i nqui r y i s l ar gel y t he
same: whet her t he i ssues pr esent ed ar e def i ni t e and concr et e,
not hypot het i cal or abst r act . Id. ( quot i ng Thomas v. Anchorage
Equal Rights Commn, 220 F. 3d 1134, 1139 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2000) ) . I n
assur i ng t hat t hi s j ur i sdi ct i onal pr er equi si t e i s sat i sf i ed, t he
cour t consi der s whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s f ace a r eal i st i c danger
of sust ai ni ng a di r ect i nj ur y as a r esul t of t he def endant s
al l egedl y i l l egal act i on or whet her t he al l eged i nj ur y i s t oo
i magi nar y or specul at i ve t o suppor t j ur i sdi ct i on. Thomas,
220 F. 3d at 1139 ( quot i ng Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Natl
Union, 442 U. S. 289, 298 ( 1979) ) . [ N] ei t her t he mer e exi st ence
of a pr oscr i pt i ve st at ut e nor a gener al i zed t hr eat of pr osecut i on
sat i sf i es t he case or cont r over sy r equi r ement . Id.
The Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s ar gue Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms as
t o t he No- Fl y Li st do not pr esent a r i pe case or cont r over sy
because Pl ai nt i f f has never per sonal l y at t empt ed t o pur chase an
ai r l i ne t i cket or t o boar d a f l i ght t o t he Uni t ed St at es. The
17 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 17 of 30 Page ID#: 310
Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s ar gue Pl ai nt i f f r el i es on vague,
out dat ed, wor d- of - mout h al l egat i ons about t he act i ons of f or ei gn
aut hor i t i es t o est abl i sh t hat Pl ai nt i f f s i nj ur y due t o hi s
st at us on t he No- Fl y Li st i s suf f i ci ent l y def i ni t e and concr et e
t o pr esent a r i pe case of cont r over sy. Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def s.
Repl y Mem. i n Supp. of Mot . t o Di smi ss ( #31) at 9.
The Cour t not es, however , t he st at ement of t he Emi r at i
aut hor i t i es t hat Pl ai nt i f f coul d not t r avel t o t he Uni t ed St at es
by ai r because he i s on t he No- Fl y Li st i s not t he onl y al l eged
basi s f or Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mt hat he i s on t he Li st . For exampl e,
Pl ai nt i f f al l eges Noor del oos, an FBI agent , t ol d Pl ai nt i f f dur i ng
t he i nt er vi ew at t he Khar t oumEmbassy on Apr i l 22, 2010, t hat
Pl ai nt i f f was on t he Li st and t hat Noor del oos t ol d Pl ai nt i f f t he
FBI coul d t ake st eps t o r emove [ P] l ai nt i f f f r omt he No- Fl y Li st
i f he agr eed t o be an i nf or mant . Thus, Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons
suggest Noor del oos not onl y knew Pl ai nt i f f was on t he No- Fl y
Li st , but al so t hat Noor del oos had i nf l uence over Pl ai nt i f f s
cont i nued st at us on t he Li st .
These al l egat i ons, accept ed as t r ue at t hi s st age of t he
pr oceedi ngs, ar e suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e t hat Pl ai nt i f f s
st at us on t he No- Fl y Li st and t he al l eged i nj ur i es t hat have
ar i sen f r omt hat st at us ar e suf f i ci ent l y def i ni t e and concr et e t o
est abl i sh a r i pe case or cont r over sy. The st at ement s of t he
Emi r at i aut hor i t i es and Noor del oos may be somewhat dat ed, but
18 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 18 of 30 Page ID#: 311
t her e i s not any evi dence of an i nt er veni ng event t hat woul d have
changed Pl ai nt i f f s st at us on t he Li st . Al t hough a deni al of
boar di ng may be necessar y t o r i pen a t ypi cal pl ai nt i f f s No- Fl y
Li st cl ai ms, her e Pl ai nt i f f al l eges he was t ol d by a cr edi bl e
aut hor i t y t hat he i s on t he Li st , and, t her ef or e, t he Cour t
concl udes i t i s not necessar y f or Pl ai nt i f f t o at t empt t o make
f ut i l e t r avel pl ans i n or der t o est abl i sh const i t ut i onal
r i peness.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t concl udes Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms t hat
ar i se f r ombei ng on t he No- Fl y Li st pr esent a const i t ut i onal l y
r i pe case or cont r over sy.
B. Prudential Ripeness
To eval uat e t he pr udent i al component of r i peness, t he
cour t wei ghs t wo consi der at i ons: t he f i t ness of t he i ssues f or
j udi ci al deci si on and t he har dshi p t o t he par t i es of wi t hhol di ng
cour t consi der at i on. Wolfson, 616 F. 3d at 1060 ( quot i ng Abbott
Labs., 387 U. S. at 149) . A cl ai mi s f i t f or deci si on i f t he
i ssues r ai sed ar e pr i mar i l y l egal , do not r equi r e f ur t her f act ual
devel opment , and t he chal l enged act i on i s f i nal . U.S. West
Communcns v. MFS Intelnet, Inc., 193 F. 3d 1112, 1118 ( 9
t h
Ci r .
1999) ( quot i ng Standard Alaska Prod. Co. v. Schaible, 874 F. 2d
624, 627 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 1989) ) . To est abl i sh har dshi p a l i t i gant
must show t hat wi t hhol di ng r evi ew woul d r esul t i n di r ect and
i mmedi at e har dshi p and woul d ent ai l mor e t han possi bl e f i nanci al
19 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 19 of 30 Page ID#: 312
l oss. Wolfson, 616 F. 3d at 1060 ( quot i ng Stormans, Inc. v.
Selecky, 586 F. 3d 1109, 1126 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2009) ) . When eval uat i ng a
cl ai mof har dshi p, t he cour t consi der s whet her t he r egul at i on
r equi r es an i mmedi at e and si gni f i cant change i n [ t he pl ai nt i f f s]
conduct of [ hi s] af f ai r s wi t h ser i ous penal t i es at t ached t o
noncompl i ance. Id.
The Cour t f i nds Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons i n hi s FAC ar e
suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr udent i al r i peness. Pl ai nt i f f s No- Fl y
Li st cl ai ms ar e pr i mar i l y l egal and do not r equi r e t he
devel opment of any addi t i onal f act s. Mor eover , Pl ai nt i f f woul d
suf f er consi der abl e har dshi p i f t he Cour t di d not consi der hi s
No- Fl y Li st cl ai ms because Pl ai nt i f f s al l eged st at us on t he No-
Fl y Li st depr i ves hi mof t he r i ght t o boar d any f l i ght t hat
ent er s Amer i can ai r space.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t concl udes Pl ai nt i f f s No- Fl y Li st
cl ai ms ar e appr opr i at e f or t he Cour t s consi der at i on under
pr udent i al r i peness.
II. Failure to State a Claim
The Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s ar gue Pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o
st at e a cl ai magai nst t hem. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) .
A. Claim One: Fourteenth Amendment
I n Cl ai mOne Pl ai nt i f f al l eges: By pl aci ng [ P] l ai nt i f f on
t he No- Fl y Li st and pr ohi bi t i ng [ P] l ai nt i f f f r omr et ur ni ng home
af t er hi s or deal i n t he UAE, [ D] ef endant s ef f ect i vel y st r i pped
20 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 20 of 30 Page ID#: 313
[ P] l ai nt i f f of hi s r i ght s, pr i vi l eges, and i mmuni t i es as a
ci t i zen, t her eby ef f ect i vel y r ender i ng hi mst at el ess i n vi ol at i on
of t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.
FAC 55, p. 15. Al t hough i t may not be cl ear on t he f ace of
Pl ai nt i f f s FAC, Pl ai nt i f f cl ar i f i ed at or al ar gument t hat Cl ai m
One i s based on t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause of t he Four t eent h
Amendment .
5
The Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment pr ovi des:
Al l per sons bor n or nat ur al i zed i n t he Uni t ed St at es, and
subj ect t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on t her eof , ar e ci t i zens of t he Uni t ed
St at es and of t he St at e wher ei n t hey r esi de. U. S. Const . amend.
XI V, 1. [ T] he pr ot ect i on af f or ded t o t he ci t i zen by t he
Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause of [ t he Four t eent h] Amendment i s a l i mi t at i on
on t he power s of t he Nat i onal Gover nment as wel l as t he St at es.
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U. S. 489, 507- 08 ( 1999) .
The Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause ser ves as a const i t ut i onal
def i ni t i on and gr ant of ci t i zenshi p. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S.
253, 262 ( 1967) . The Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause pr ovi des t he
const i t ut i onal basi s f or cl ai ms r egar di ng an i ndi vi dual s l egal
st at us as a ci t i zen. See, e.g., Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252
5
To t he ext ent t hat Pl ai nt i f f seeks t o st at e a cl ai munder
t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment
i n Cl ai mOne, t he Cour t concl udes t hat ef f or t f ai l s because t he
Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause appl i es i n t er ms onl y t o
act i ons t aken by st at es, not t o t hose . . . t aken by t he f eder al
gover nment . Russell v. Hug, 275 F. 3d 812, 822 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2002) .
21 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 21 of 30 Page ID#: 314
( 1980) ( t o ext i ngui sh an i ndi vi dual s ci t i zenshi p st at us, a t r i er
of f act must f i nd t hat t he ci t i zen i nt ended t o r enounce hi s
ci t i zenshi p) ; Afroyim, 387 U. S. at 267 ( ci t i zenshi p can onl y be
r evoked upon t he vol unt ar i l y r el i nqui shment of ci t i zenshi p by t he
ci t i zen) ; Rabang v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 35 F. 3d
1449, 1452 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 1994) ( bi r t h i n t he Phi l i ppi nes dur i ng i t s
t er r i t or i al per i od does not const i t ut e bi r t h i n t he Uni t ed
St at es under t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause . . . and t hus does not gi ve
r i se t o Uni t ed St at es ci t i zenshi p. ) .
As an i ni t i al mat t er , Pl ai nt i f f i s undoubt edl y cor r ect t hat
t he r i ght t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es i s i nher ent i n Amer i can
ci t i zenshi p. See Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.,
533 U. S. 53, 67 ( 2001) ( ci t i zenshi p i n t he Uni t ed St at es i ncl udes
an absol ut e r i ght t o ent er i t s bor der s. ) . Pl ai nt i f f , however ,
seeks t o ext end t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause not onl y t o pr ot ect an
i ndi vi dual s status as a ci t i zen, but al so t o pr ot ect t he rights
of ci t i zenshi p.
Pl ai nt i f f does not ci t e any cases and t he Cour t does not
f i nd any i n whi ch t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause has been i nt er pr et ed t o
pr ot ect t he r i ght s of ci t i zenshi p. I nst ead t he Ci t i zenshi p
Cl ause onl y def i nes and pr ot ect s an i ndi vi dual s st at us as a
ci t i zen whi l e ot her const i t ut i onal l i mi t at i ons on t he power s of
t he gover nment pr ot ect t he r i ght s of ci t i zenshi p. I ndeed, t hi s
was t he r ol e of t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause wi t hi n t he Four t eent h
22 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 22 of 30 Page ID#: 315
Amendment at i t s passage: [ W] hen t he Four t eent h Amendment
passed t he House wi t hout cont ai ni ng any def i ni t i on of
ci t i zenshi p, t he sponsor s of t he Amendment i n t he Senat e i nsi st ed
on i nser t i ng a const i t ut i onal def i ni t i on and gr ant of
ci t i zenshi p. Afroyim, 387 U. S. at 262. Pl ai nt i f f s
i nt er pr et at i on of t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause as pr ot ect i ng t he r i ght s
of ci t i zenshi p woul d t r ansf or mt he pr ovi si on f r oma
const i t ut i onal def i ni t i on and gr ant of ci t i zenshi p ( see id.)
i nt o a cat chal l pr ovi si on pr ot ect i ng ever y r i ght r easonabl y
char act er i zed as a r i ght of ci t i zenshi p cont r ar y t o t he pl ai n
meani ng and pur pose of t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause.
The Cour t not es Pl ai nt i f f does not al l ege Def endant s have
t aken any act i on t o st r i p hi mof hi s Uni t ed St at es ci t i zenshi p,
and, t her ef or e, t he Cour t concl udes Pl ai nt i f f does not st at e a
cl ai mf or r el i ef i n Cl ai mOne under t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause of t he
Four t eent h Amendment . Because t hat def i ci ency cannot be cur ed by
amendment , t he Cour t di smi sses Pl ai nt i f f s Cl ai mOne wi t h
pr ej udi ce.
B. Claim Two: Torture
I n Cl ai mTwo Pl ai nt i f f al l eges al l Def endant s enl i st ed
f or ei gn i nt er medi ar i es t o t or t ur e [ P] l ai nt i f f at t hei r behest .
The f or ei gn i nt er medi ar i es wer e di r ect ed t o t or t ur e [ P] l ai nt i f f ,
and [ P] l ai nt i f f was t or t ur ed i n accor dance wi t h [ D] ef endant s
i nst r uct i ons. FAC 58, pp. 15- 16.
23 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 23 of 30 Page ID#: 316
Al t hough a cl ai mmust cont ai n a shor t and pl ai n st at ement
of t he cl ai mshowi ng t hat t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef ,
Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2) , t he Cour t not es Pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o pl ead
any l egal basi s upon whi ch he seeks r el i ef i n Cl ai mTwo.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t concl udes on t hi s r ecor d t hat
Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o meet t he pl eadi ng r equi r ement s of Rul e 8.
The Cour t , t her ef or e, di smi sses Pl ai nt i f f s Cl ai mTwo wi t hout
pr ej udi ce and wi t h l eave t o amend t o pl ead f act s t hat pr ovi de a
l egal basi s f or t he r el i ef t hat he seeks i n Cl ai mTwo.
C. Claim Five: Substantive Due Process
I n Cl ai mFi ve Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t he act i ons of Def endant s
Hol der , FBI , Comey, and Pi ehot a i n pl aci ng [ P] l ai nt i f f on t he
FBI - mai nt ai ned, secr et No- Fl y Li st r esul t ed i n t he vi ol at i on of
Pl ai nt i f f s Fi f t h Amendment subst ant i ve due pr ocess r i ght t o
r et ur n t o t he homel and. FAC 67, p. 17.
Subst ant i ve due pr ocess pr ovi des hei ght ened pr ot ect i on
agai nst gover nment i nt er f er ence wi t h cer t ai n f undament al r i ght s
and l i ber t y i nt er est s. Mohamed v. Holder, No. 1: 11- CV- 50
( AJ T/ TRJ ) , 2014 WL 243115, at *13 ( E. D. Va. J an. 22,
2014) ( quot i ng Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719
( 1997) ) . Subst ant i ve due pr ocess pr ot ect s t hose f undament al
r i ght s and l i ber t i es whi ch ar e, obj ect i vel y, deepl y r oot ed i n
t hi s Nat i on s hi st or y and t r adi t i on, and i mpl i ci t i n t he
concept of or der ed l i ber t y, such t hat nei t her l i ber t y nor
24 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 24 of 30 Page ID#: 317
j ust i ce woul d exi st i f t hey wer e sacr i f i ced. Glucksberg, 521
U. S. at 720- 21 ( quot i ng Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio,
431 U. S. 494, 503 ( 1977) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) , and Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325- 26 ( 1937) ) .
To est abl i sh a subst ant i ve due- pr ocess cl ai m, t he pl ai nt i f f
must car ef ul l y descr i be t he f undament al l i ber t y i nt er est . Id. at
721. I n t hi s case t he onl y i nf r i nged l i ber t y i nt er est al l eged by
Pl ai nt i f f i s hi s r i ght t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es.
The Of f i ci al Capaci t y Def endant s, however , cont end
Pl ai nt i f f s asser t i on of such an i nf r i nged l i ber t y i nt er est f ai l s
on t hr ee gr ounds: ( 1) no cour t has r ecogni zed a r i ght t o r et ur n
t o t he Uni t ed St at es; ( 2) even i f such a r i ght exi st s, i t onl y
ser ves t o per mi t a ci t i zen ent r y upon pr esent at i on t o a por t of
ent r y and does not ext end t o t he r i ght t o r each a por t of ent r y;
and ( 3) even i f t he r i ght t o r et ur n ext ends t o mor e t han a r i ght
t o cr oss t he bor der , Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o al l ege hi s i ncl usi on
on t he No- Fl y Li st pr esent s an i nsur mount abl e bar r i er t o
r et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es.
Because t he Supr eme Cour t has descr i bed t he r i ght of an
Amer i can ci t i zen t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es f r omabr oad as
absol ut e, Nguyen, 533 U. S. at 67, t he Cour t f i nds t he r i ght of
a ci t i zen t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es f r omabr oad i s
25 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 25 of 30 Page ID#: 318
cogni zabl e under subst ant i ve due pr ocess.
6
As J udge Ant hony J .
Tr enga s concl uded i n Mohamed:
{A] U. S. ci t i zen s r i ght t o r eent er t he Uni t ed
St at es ent ai l s mor e t han si mpl y t he r i ght t o st ep
over t he bor der af t er havi ng ar r i ved t her e. At
some poi nt , gover nment al act i ons t aken t o pr event
or i mpede a ci t i zen f r omr eachi ng t he [ bor der ]
i nf r i nge upon t he ci t i zen s r i ght t o r eent er t he
Uni t ed St at es.
Mohamed, 2014 WL 243115, at *14 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
Thus, t o pl ead a subst ant i ve due- pr ocess cl ai mbased on a
depr i vat i on of t he r i ght t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es,
Pl ai nt i f f must al l ege f act s suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e t hat
Def endant s have depr i ved hi mof ever y vi abl e means of r et ur ni ng
t o t he count r y. Her e Pl ai nt i f f al l eges [ a] i r t r avel i s t he onl y
pr act i cal means of passenger t r anspor t at i on bet ween t he Nor t h
Amer i can cont i nent and Eur ope, Asi a, Af r i ca, t he Mi ddl e East , and
Aust r al i a. FAC 17, p. 5. Al t hough t hi s may be t he sor t of
concl usor y al l egat i on t hat or di nar i l y i s not ent i t l ed t o
accept ance as t r ue at t hi s st age of t he pr oceedi ngs, i t i s,
never t hel ess, consi st ent wi t h t he r eal i t i es of t he moder n wor l d.
Tarhuni v. Holder, No. 3: 13- cv- 00001- BR, 2014 WL 1269655, at *11
( D. Or . Mar . 26, 2014) . See also Mohamed, 2014 WL 243115, at *6;
Latif v. Holder, 969 F. Supp. 2d. 1293, 1302- 03 ( D. Or . 2013) ;
6
The Cour t need not deci de at t hi s st age of t he pr oceedi ng
t he l evel of scr ut i ny t hat appl i es t o bur dens on a ci t i zen s
r i ght t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es.
26 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 26 of 30 Page ID#: 319
Ibrahim v. Dept of Homeland Sec., No. C 06- 00545 WHA, 2012 WL
6652362, at *7 ( N. D. Cal . Dec. 20, 2012) .
Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons, never t hel ess, r eveal he has been
of f er ed a vi abl e means of r et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es. As
not ed, Pl ai nt i f f al l eges Def endant Noor del oos t ol d hi m:
Whenever you want t o go home you come t o t he embassy. FAC
27, p. 8. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s l ack of conf i dence i n St at e
Depar t ment per sonnel i s under st andabl e i n l i ght of t he f act s he
al l eges, Pl ai nt i f f s concer ns do not est abl i sh t he opt i on of
maki ng ar r angement s t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es t hr ough t he
embassy i s act ual l y unavai l abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f . Thus, Pl ai nt i f f
has not suf f i ci ent l y al l eged f act s t o suppor t a concl usi on t hat
Def endant s Hol der , FBI , Comey, and Pi ehot a have depr i ved hi mof
al l vi abl e means of r et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es.
On t hi s r ecor d, t her ef or e, t he Cour t concl udes Pl ai nt i f f has
f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai magai nst Def endant s Hol der , FBI , Comey,
and Pi ehot a t hat t hey depr i ved hi mof al l pr act i cal means of
r et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es. I n f act , t he Cour t not es
Pl ai nt i f f s speci f i c al l egat i ons about t he l i mi t at i ons i mposed
upon hi mby hi s pr esence on t he No- Fl y Li st ar e par t i cul ar l y
spar se. See FAC 19, p. 5. Mor eover , because t he Cour t f i nds
Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons show t hat Pl ai nt i f f has a vi abl e means of
r et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es, t he Cour t need not det er mi ne on
27 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 27 of 30 Page ID#: 320
t hi s Mot i on whet her t hese mi ni mal al l egat i ons ar e suf f i ci ent t o
i mpl i cat e Pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed St at es.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t di smi sses Pl ai nt i f f s Cl ai mFi ve
wi t hout pr ej udi ce and wi t h l eave t o amend.
D. Claim Six: Procedural Due Process
I n Cl ai mSi x Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t he act i ons of Def endant s
Hol der , FBI , Comey, and Pi ehot a i n pl aci ng [ P] l ai nt i f f on t he
FBI - mai nt ai ned, secr et No- Fl y Li st wi t hout i nf or mi ng hi mof such
pl acement , t he basi s f or hi s i ncl usi on on t he No- Fl y Li st , t he
means of r emovi ng hi s name f r omt he No- Fl y Li st , or pr ovi di ng an
i ndependent f or umi n whi ch [ P] l ai nt i f f mi ght secur e t he r emoval
of hi s name f r omt he No- Fl y Li st , al l vi ol at ed [ P] l ai nt i f f s
r i ght t o pr ocedur al due pr ocess under t he Fi f t h Amendment . FAC
69, pp. 17- 18.
When pr esent ed wi t h a pr ocedur al due- pr ocess cl ai m, t he
Cour t must wei gh t hr ee f act or s i n eval uat i ng t he suf f i ci ency of
pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons: ( 1) t he pr i vat e i nt er est t hat wi l l be
af f ect ed by t he of f i ci al act i on; ( 2) t he r i sk of er r oneous
depr i vat i on of such i nt er est t hr ough t he pr ocedur es used, and t he
pr obat i ve val ue, i f any, of addi t i onal or subst i t ut e pr ocedur al
saf eguar ds; and ( 3) t he Gover nment s i nt er est , i ncl udi ng t he
f unct i on i nvol ved and t he f i scal and admi ni st r at i ve bur dens t hat
t he addi t i onal or subst i t ut e pr ocedur al r equi r ement woul d
ent ai l . Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 ( 1976) . To
28 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 28 of 30 Page ID#: 321
st at e a cl ai munder pr ocedur al due pr ocess, a pl ai nt i f f must at a
mi ni mumsuf f i ci ent l y pl ead t he depr i vat i on of a pr ot ect ed l i ber t y
or pr oper t y i nt er est and t he deni al of adequat e pr ocedur al
pr ot ect i ons. Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch.
Dist., 149 F. 3d 971, 982- 83 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 1998) .
I n Cl ai mSi x Pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai magai nst
Def endant s Hol der , FBI , Comey, and Pi ehot a under pr ocedur al due
pr ocess because he does not i dent i f y any pr ot ect ed i nt er est t hat
he has been depr i ved of by Def endant s' of f i ci al act i ons. Thus,
because Pl ai nt i f f has not al l eged any pr ot ect ed pr i vat e i nt er est
t hat has been af f ect ed i n Cl ai mSi x, f ur t her anal ysi s of
Pl ai nt i f f s pr ocedur al due- pr ocess cl ai mi s i mpossi bl e under t he
Mathews bal anci ng f act or s.
Accor di ngl y, on t hi s r ecor d t he Cour t di smi sses Pl ai nt i f f s
Cl ai mSi x wi t hout pr ej udi ce and wi t h l eave t o amend.
CONCLUSION
For t hese r easons, t he Cour t GRANTS t he Of f i ci al Capaci t y
Def endant s Mot i on ( #21) t o Di smi ss f or Fai l ur e t o St at e a Cl ai m
and f or Lack of J ur i sdi ct i on; DISMISSES with prejudice Cl ai mOne;
DISMISSES without prejudice Cl ai ms Two, Fi ve, and Si x wi t h l eave
t o f i l e a Second Amended Compl ai nt consi st ent wi t h t hi s Opi ni on
and Or der no l at er t han June 27, 2014; and di r ect s t hese
29 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 29 of 30 Page ID#: 322
Def endant s t o f i l e t hei r r esponsi ve pl eadi ng t o t he Second
Amended Compl ai nt no l at er t han July 25, 2014.
I T I S SO ORDERED.
DATED t hi s 29t h day of May, 2014.
/ s/ Anna J . Br own
_____________________________
Anna J . Br own
Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge
30 - OPI NI ON AND ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 36 Filed 05/29/14 Page 30 of 30 Page ID#: 323