The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina, United States District Judge.
GRANTING THE NEW JERSEY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter comes before the court on on a motion by defendants Steven Siegel, a sergeant employed with the Union County Prosecutor's Office in New Jersey, and Thomas Manahan, a Union County prosecutor (collectively, the "New Jersey defendants"), to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). In challenging the pro se plaintiff's complaint, the New Jersey defendants question why the plaintiff has chosen to sue them in the District of Columbia when the alleged events giving rise to the plaintiff's claims occurred in New Jersey. Perhaps more to the point, the New Jersey defendants question whether the plaintiff can sue them in the District of Columbia at all. Because the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any relationship between the District of Columbia and the New Jersey defendants, the court grants the New Jersey defendants' motion to dismiss.
On May 28, 2002, the pro se plaintiff, a native and citizen of Finland, filed his complaint seeking compensatory damages and asserting various claims against 18 individual defendants, including former President Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, three different presidents of Finland, the publisher of the Washington Post, and the New Jersey defendants. Compl. at 1-3, 7, Ex. B (Decision of Immigration Judge dated Oct. 1, 1999).
The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the defendants are responsible for "suppression of matters, destroying documents, blackmailing, organizing illegal action,... extortion, neglecting one's duty,... illegal imprisonment, assault,... and falsifying documents." Id. at 4. The plaintiff promises that if the court allows this action to proceed, the plaintiff will reveal "the tragic and premature deaths of five Americans and two Europeans." Id. at 6. The plaintiff further claims that the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") wrongfully deported him from the United States and challenges certain decisions by a federal immigration court denying the plaintiff political asylum in the United States. Id. at 4-6.
The events giving rise to this action can be categorized by three separate immigration proceedings. The first set of proceedings began sometime in 1995 when the INS denied the plaintiff's application for asylum and subsequently deportated him. Id. at 4.
The second set of proceedings was triggered in July 1999 when the plaintiff attempted to re-enter the United States. Id. Ex. D at 1-2. INS found the plaintiff to be inadmissible into the country and referred the matter to the immigration court, whereupon the plaintiff requested political asylum. Id.
At this point, the account of the events diverges. According to the immigration court, it then denied the plaintiff's request for asylum. Id. Ex. D at 5-6. According to the plaintiff, the immigration court initially granted him asylum, but President Clinton later invalidated the court's decision. Id. at 5. In July 2000, the plantiff once again was deported from the United States. Id.
The third and final set of proceedings began in December 2000 when the plaintiff re-entered the United States. Id. Upon his re-entry, the plaintiff was arrested and eventually deported in June 2001. Id. at 5-6.
At some stage in these proceedings, the plaintiff apparently suffered harm in both the Union County Jail and Prosecutor's Office located in New Jersey. See generally id. The plaintiff alleges that he "was assaulted and... disturbed sexually" while imprisoned in New Jersey. Id. at 4. The plaintiff additionally claims that the Union County Prosecutor's Office exploited his testimony without proper compensation in connection with a trial. Id.
On August 30, 2002, the New Jersey defendants filed their motion to dismiss. The court now ...