UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ZAID HASSAN ABD LATIF SAFARINI,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 17-430 (RDM)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Former Attorney
General, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appearing pro se, Plaintiff Zaid Hassan Abd Al-Latif Masud Safarini (“Safarini”) filed
this suit in March 2017 against various former U.S. and foreign officials, the Kingdoms of
Thailand and Jordan, the Thai National Police, and Thai Airlines International. He alleges that
he was unlawfully kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand in 2001 by agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”), acting with the assistance of the remaining defendants, and rendered to the
United States for trial. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), the Court previously dismissed Safarini’s claims against the Kingdoms of
Thailand and Jordan, the Thai National Police, Dkt. 12, “Thai Airlines International,” Ahmed Al-
Hajayh, and various “unknown immigration officials of the Kingdom of Thailand, Dkt. 14. As a
result, the sole remaining defendants are former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former
Director of the FBI Robert Mueller, and three current or former FBI agents. Having reviewed
the complaint and the relevant law, the Court now sua sponte dismisses Safarini’s claims against
those officials. And, having now addressed all of Safarini’s claims, the Court will dismiss the
action.
I. BACKGROUND
The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim begin on September 5, 1986, when Safarini,
along with four other armed men, hijacked a Pan Am flight on the tarmac in Karachi, Pakistan.
See United States’ Omnibus Opposition at 1–2, United States v. Zaid Hassan ABD Al-Latiff
Masud Al Safarini, No. 91-cr-504-03 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2017). Twenty people—including two
American citizens—were killed, and over one hundred people were injured. Id. at 2. Safarini
was tried and convicted in Pakistan in 1987. Id. After fifteen years in prison in Pakistan,
Safarini was released on September 27, 2001. Id.
Safarini alleges in his complaint that, upon his release, a Jordanian official named Ahmed
Al-Hajayh met Safarini and informed him that Al-Hajayh had made arrangements to transport
Safarini home to Jordan. Dkt. 1 at 4 (Compl. ¶ 15). The arranged flight included a scheduled
stopover in Bangkok, Thailand, where Safarini says he deplaned to change flights. Id. While
waiting for the next flight that would take him to Jordan, three FBI special agents, whom Safarini
identifies as “Special Agent Brad,” “Special Agent Nada Ali,” and an “Unknown Special
Agent,” allegedly handcuffed Safarini and put him on a flight bound for the United States. Id.
After his arrest, Safarini was tried in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia for multiple crimes, including murder, attempted murder, attempted air-piracy,
hostage-taking, and conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States. See United States’
Omnibus Opposition at 2–3, United States v. Zaid Hassan ABD Al-Latiff Masud Al Safarini, No.
91-cr-504-03 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2017). Safarini pleaded guilty to ninety-five charges and was
sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus twenty-five years. Id. at 3–4.
After sentencing, Safarini was transported to the supermax penitentiary in Florence,
Colorado, where he was held for seven years. Dkt. 1 at 5 (Compl. ¶ 15). Safarini alleges that
2
while held in the supermax facility, he “had very little contact with others, largely remaining in
solitary confinement.” Id. at 5. As a result, Safarini contends that he suffered, and continues to
suffer, from “numerous health and psychological problems, including cardiac disorders, stress
and anxiety disorders.” Id. He alleges that his placement in the supermax facility was “totally
arbitrary” and “implemented solely for punishment over and above that imposed by the court.”
Id.
On March 10, 2017, Safarini filed this action against various U.S. and foreign officials
and others he alleges were involved in his purported kidnapping. In two previous orders, the
Court dismissed the foreign defendants: the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Thailand National Police Agency, Dkt 12; “Thai Airline
International,” Ahmed Al-Hajayh, and “Unknown Immigration Officials” for the Government of
the Kingdom of Thailand, Dkt. 14. The remaining defendants include the FBI special agents that
allegedly executed Plaintiff’s arrest and transport to the United States—Special Agent “Brad,”
Special Agent Nada Ali, and “One Unknown Special Agent”—as well as former Attorney
General John Ashcroft and former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller (collectively the “Federal
Defendants”). Dkt. 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 3–13). The complaint specifies that “the individuals named as
defendants are being sued in their individual capacities.” 1 Id. (Compl. ¶ 14).
1
Because Safarini is proceeding pro se, “[t]he officers of the court” are responsible for serving
“all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Although the U.S. Marshal’s Service attempted to serve the
Federal Defendants, the United States has filed a Statement of Interest, 28 U.S.C. § 517, noting
that former Attorney General Ashcroft, former FBI Director Mueller, and the current or former
FBI agents have not been properly served, and arguing that the case should therefore be
dismissed for failure of timely service. Dkt. 9. That would seem a harsh and unjust
consequence, given that Safarini is not responsible for effecting service and that the Department
of Justice has (at least to the Court’s knowledge) done nothing to facilitate service of former
government officials. In the ordinary course, the Court would ask the plaintiff for the mailing
addresses necessary to effect service, but it seems implausible—and, in any event, unwise—to
suggest that incarcerated felons should know where former law enforcement officials reside. It
3
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required to dismiss a “case at any
time if” it “determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous[,] malicious[,] . . . fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted[,] or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint that is “filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed,’” and, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But, where “it is patently obvious” that the plaintiff
cannot “prevail[] on the facts alleged in his complaint,” Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916
F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the Court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Baldwin v. Small Business Admin., 2017 WL 2455026 *3
(D.D.C. June 6, 2017), and, indeed, must do so under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
III. ANALYSIS
Liberally construed, the complaint purports to allege claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); the Alien Tort Statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1350; the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.; the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.; the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985; the Third
and Fourth Geneva Conventions, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 6 U.S.T. 3516; various criminal statutes, 18
U.S.C. §§ 1201, 1651; “[i]nternational laws;” “the extradition treaty with Thailand;” the Geneva
would benefit the courts and the sound (and safe) administration of justice for the Department of
Justice to consider how the courts should go about effecting service on current and former law
enforcement officials without revealing their personal addresses.
4
Convention; and common law fraud. Dkt. 1 at 2, 5–6 (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 16). The Court will consider
each of these allegations in turn.
A. Bivens
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), recognized an implied private cause of action for damages against federal officials for
alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Subsequent decisions, moreover, have extended
that implied cause of action to violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979), and to violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Clause of the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980). Here, the
complaint invokes Bivens and all three of these constitutional provisions. Those claims fail for
two reasons.
First, Safarini’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims fail because they seek recovery for
allegedly tortious conduct committed overseas by U.S. officials engaged in a terrorism
investigation. In particular, he alleges that the Federal Defendants unlawfully seized him at the
airport in Bangkok, Thailand, and then unlawfully transported him to the United States. Dkt. 1 at
4 (Compl. ¶ 15). Safarini further alleges that he is a “foreign national.” Id. at 3 (Compl. ¶ 3).
And, finally, although not recounted in the complaint, the Court can take judicial notice of the
fact that Safarini was taken into U.S. custody on charges that he led a team that hijacked a Pan
Am flight in Karachi, Pakistan; shot one U.S. citizen and threw his body on the tarmac; and,
eventually, opened fire on the passengers, killing nineteen of them, including another U.S.
citizen, and injuring over a hundred others. See United States v. Safarini, 257 F. Supp. 2d 191,
193 (D.D.C. 2003). As a result, the Court must decide whether Bivens reaches claims brought
under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, by non-U.S.-persons, for
5
actions taken by U.S. law enforcement officials outside the United States, in response to the
hijacking of an aircraft outside the United States. The answer to that question is “no.”
The D.C. Circuit decided a similar question in Meshal v. Higgenbotham, 804 F.3d 417
(D.C. Cir. 2015). There, the Court of Appeals held that Bivens does not extend to cases
involving (1) national security or terrorism investigations, (2) where the relevant “conduct that
occurred outside the borders of the United States.” Id. at 425–26. The Court reached that
conclusion, moreover, even though the plaintiff in that action—unlike the present case—was a
U.S. citizen, and even though the investigation in that case had both national security and
criminal law enforcement components. Id. at 418, 423. Although the terrorist attack at issue in
this case occurred fifteen years before Safarini’s apprehension by U.S. officials, the same
considerations that were present in Meshal apply here as well. As the Court of Appeals wrote,
“[m]atters touching on national security and foreign policy fall within an area of executive action
where courts hesitate to intrude absent congressional authorization,” and, courts must proceed
with caution when their actions “could have diplomatic consequences.” Id. at 426–27. Here,
Safarini’s claim posits that the United States connived with foreign officials to take him into
custody on foreign soil; thus, his claim, even if accepted as true for purposes of evaluating its
legal merit, necessarily implicates sensitive issues of national security and foreign policy.
But, even putting this aside, extending Bivens to Safarini’s claims would involve a leap
well beyond that which the Court of Appeals deemed too far in Meshal. Safarini is not a U.S.
citizen, and, more importantly, he was not a U.S. citizen at the time he was allegedly
apprehended by U.S. law enforcement officials in Thailand. The Court is unaware of any case in
which any court has extended Bivens to a claim by a non-U.S.-citizen, alleging that he was
deprived of his or her rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments while outside the United
6
States and outside any area over which the United States has exercised authority or control. The
case law that does exist, moreover, counsels against recognition of such an extraordinary
extension of U.S. tort law. See, e.g., United States v. Verdugo-Urquiez, 494 U.S. 259, 276–75
(1990) (holding that the Fourth Amendment does not protect nonresident aliens against
unreasonable searches or seizures conducted outside sovereign U.S. territory); Kiyemba v.
Obama, 555 F.3d 1022, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that the Due Process Clause “does not
apply to aliens without property or presence in the sovereign territory of the United States”),
vacated and remanded, 559 U.S. 131 (2010), reinstated in relevant part, 605 F.3d 1046 (D.C.
Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 954 (2011).
Safarini’s Eighth Amendment Bivens claim fares no better. Although Safarini premises
this claim on conduct that allegedly occurred in the United States—the conditions of his
confinement at the supermax facility—he has failed to allege “sufficient factual matter” that,
even if accepted as true, would state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). He alleges that, while at the supermax facility, he “had very
little contract with others, largely remaining in solitary confinement,” and that, as result, he
suffered “numerous health and psychological problems.” Dkt. 1 at 5 (Compl. ¶ 15). This
confinement, he adds, “was totally arbitrary . . . and was implemented solely for punishment over
and above that imposed by the court.” Id. But, nowhere does Safarini allege or explain how
former Attorney General Ashcroft, former FBI Director Mueller, and the three FBI agents
involved in his apprehension are responsible for the conditions at the supermax facility. Absent
some factual allegation that the Federal Defendants “participated in any decision or approved
any policy that related to” the conditions of his confinement or otherwise “specifying [their]
involvement,” Safarini’s claim cannot pass muster under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7
12(b)(6). Cameron v. Thornburg, 983 F.2d 253, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Staples v. United
States, 948 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2013) (“A federal official may be held personally liable
under Bivens only for unconstitutional conduct in which he was personally and directly
involved.”).
Accordingly, Safarini’s Bivens claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
B. Federal Tort Claims Act
Plaintiff also brings suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which authorizes
suit against the United States for certain injuries caused by “the negligent or wrongful act or
omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). That claim fails for multiple reasons, only three of
which require discussion here.
First, “[t]he United States of America is the only proper defendant in a suit under the
FTCA.” Chandler v. FBI, 227 F. Supp. 3d at 112, 116 n.3 (D.D.C. 2017). Safarini, however,
has not sued the United States, and he has made clear that his claims against the Federal
Defendants are brought against them in their “individual capacities.” Dkt. 1 at 4 (Compl. ¶ 14).
Nor has the United States filed a certification under the Westfall Act, which would substitute the
United States for the individual defendants. Sai v. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 149 F. Supp. 3d 99,
122–23 (D.D.C. 2015).
Second, even had Safarini named the United States, his FTCA claim would fail. The
FTCA “was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from
suits in tort and, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a
private individual would be under like circumstances.” Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6
8
(1962). But, where a statutory exception applies, the waiver of sovereign immunity remains
intact, and the court is without jurisdiction to consider the claim. That is the case here. In
particular, the FTCA contains an express exception for “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign
country.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k). In circumstances much like those present here, the Supreme
Court held in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), that the foreign country exception
barred suit under the FTCA against U.S. law enforcement officials for allegedly arranging for
“Mexican nationals to seize [another Mexican national] and [to] bring him to the United States
for trial.” Id. at 698. As the Supreme Court explained, those actions were “naturally understood
as the kernel of a ‘claim arising in a foreign country,’” and were thus “barred from suit under the
exception to the waiver of immunity.” Id. at 700 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k)). The Court was
unpersuaded, moreover, that actions of U.S. officials in the United States in orchestrating the
seizure took the case outside the foreign country exception. Id. at 703–12. Because Safarini’s
claim that he was unlawfully seized in Thailand is, in relevant respects, on all fours with Sosa,
the Court would lack jurisdiction over such a claim, even had Safarini named the United States.
Third, to the extent Safarini seeks to recover under the FTCA on the theory that the
conditions of his incarceration at the supermax facility violated his Eighth Amendment rights,
the FTCA does not provide a remedy for constitutional torts. In the words of the Supreme Court,
“the United States simply has not rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort
claims.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994). Thus, the Court would also lack jurisdiction
over an FTCA claim against the United States premised on the Eighth Amendment.
9
Safarini’s FTCA claims against the Federal Defendants, accordingly, must also be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. 2
C. Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions
The Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) authorizes suit “by an alien for a tort . . . committed in
violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. As with
Safarini’s FTCA claims, the Supreme Court addressed claims much like his ATS and
international law claims in Sosa. 542 U.S. at 712–38. Like Safarini, the plaintiff in Sosa alleged
that he had been forcibly abducted overseas so that he could be brought to the United States to
face criminal charges. Id. at 697. In considering whether the ATS provided a vehicle for such a
suit, the Supreme Court held that the ATS is merely a jurisdictional statute, which does not itself
create a cause of action. Id. at 724. But it also held that Congress granted the federal courts
jurisdiction over alien torts “on the understanding that the common law would provide a cause of
action for the modest number of international law violations with a potential for personal liability
at the time.” Id. Thus, to bring a common law claim under the ATS, a plaintiff must identify “a
norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity
comparable to the features of the 18th-century paradigms [the Court has previously] recognized.”
Id. at 725. Applying these principles, the Sosa Court concluded:
Whatever may be said for the broad principle [the plaintiff] advances, in the present,
imperfect world, it expresses an aspiration that exceeds any binding customary rule
having the specificity we require. Creating a private cause of action to further that
aspiration would go beyond any residual common law discretion we think it
appropriate to exercise. It is enough to hold that a single illegal detention of less
than a day, followed by the transfer of custody to lawful authorities and a prompt
arraignment, violates no norm of customary international law so well defined as to
support the creation of a federal remedy.
2
As discussed above, had Safarini brought suit against the United States, those same claims
would fail for want of jurisdiction.
10
Id. at 738.
The same, of course, follows here—with, if anything, even greater certainty. Indeed,
while the plaintiff in Sosa was abducted in Mexico after the Mexican government declined to
“help in getting [him] into the United States,” id. at 698, Safarini alleges that Thai government
officials “allow[ed]” the FBI to take him into custody, Dkt. 1 at 3 (Compl. ¶ 6). In any event,
even if Safarini’s seizure and brief detention in Thailand—before he was brought to the United
States and promptly arraigned—was in any way “illegal,” it did not violate any “norm of
customary international law so well defined as to support” a claim under the ATS. Sosa, 542
U.S. at 738.
Thus, Safarini’s ATS and related international law claims must also be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
D. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) prohibits the government from
“substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” unless it “demonstrates that
application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)–(b). Safarini fails to allege that the government took any
action that burdened his free exercise of religion, and, accordingly, this claim also fails as a
matter of law. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
include “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged”).
11
E. Ku Klux Klan Act
The Ku Klux Klan Act is a Reconstruction-Era statute that provides a damages action
“[i]f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving . . .
any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities of the laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Section 1985 provides a remedy only when the
plaintiff can show, among other things, “that some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based,
invidiously discriminatory animus lay behind the conspirators’ action.” Bray v. Alexandria
Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268 (1993) (alterations, quotation marks, and citations
omitted). Here, Safarini has not alleged that the Federal Defendants took any action motivated
by that kind of discriminatory animus. Accordingly, this claim must also be dismissed for failure
to state a claim.
F. Criminal Statutes and Fraud Claim
Safarini’s last two sets of claims also fail as a matter of law. He attempts to invoke two
federal criminal statutes (kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1201, and piracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1651), but—
even if applicable—neither of those statutes includes a private right of action, and federal
criminal statutes cannot be enforced through a Bivens action, see Kittner v. Gates, 783 F. Supp.
2d 170, 175 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Finally, Safarini alleges the Federal Defendants violated
“representations made to the representatives of the government of Pakistan,” and thus committed
“fraud.” Dkt. 1 at 6 (Compl. ¶ 16). To state a claim for common law fraud, a plaintiff must
allege “(1) the defendant made a false representation; (2) in reference to material fact; (3) with
knowledge of its falsity; (4) with the intent to deceive the plaintiff; (5) the plaintiff acted in
reasonable reliance on that representation; (6) which consequently resulted in provable
damages.” Essroc Cement Corp. v. CTI/D.C., Inc., 740 F. Supp. 2d 131, 145 (D.D.C. 2010).
12
Here, Safarini does not allege that the Federal Defendants intended to deceive him or that he
acted in reliance on any representation they made. For both of these reasons—and others as
well—he has failed to state a claim for common law fraud.
Accordingly, Safarini’s criminal law and common law fraud claims must also be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the remaining claims in Safarini’s complaint will be
dismissed on the Court’s own motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: January 3, 2018
13