Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Khan v. Holder

United States District Court, D. Columbia

September 29, 2015

ALI KHAN, a/k/a ARSHAD ALI MALIK, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants

Page 245

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 246

          ALI KHAN, also known as ARSHAD ALI MALIK, Plaintiff, Pro se, TORONTO, ONTARIO.

         For ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, SECRETARY OF STATE, EDWIN D. SLOANE, U.S. Marshall, UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Named Unknown Agents, UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE, Named Unknown Agents, CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., and Named Agents Unknown Thereof, Defendants: Kenneth A. Adebonojo, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.

Page 247

         MEMORANDUM OPINION

         JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge.

         Everyone agrees that Ali Khan's last year in federal jail was a mistake. After he finished serving his original sentence, he received an additional 168 months for violating parole from an earlier offense. But under the terms of Khan's extradition from Canada, there was no authority to impose that additional sentence. Now properly released from American custody, he seeks ten million dollars in damages. Although Khan surely suffered a terrible injury, the relief he seeks is barred by the procedural and jurisdictional rules as well as Khan's failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court will grant the government defendants' motion to dismiss.

         BACKGROUND

         Back in 1981, Khan was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment and--relevant here--lifetime parole in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Malik v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 2012 WL 6682128, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2012). After he served his sentence, Khan returned to his native Canada. Id.

         More than twenty years later, the federal government indicted Khan in the Eastern District of Michigan. See id. Khan eventually consented to his extradition from Canada to the United States, under the terms of the extradition treaty between the two nations. See id. This meant that his surrender to the United States was " for the sole purpose of facing the charge filed against [him] in the Michigan

Page 248

federal case." Id. And once in Michigan, Khan pleaded guilty. Id. At sentencing, the Presentence Investigation Report (" PSR" ) incorrectly stated that Khan had waived, rather than consented to, extradition. See Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 9. Khan surmises that the mistake might have occurred because the Clerk of Court did not enter Khan's order of surrender on the docket until after the PSR had been completed. See id. At the time, however, neither Khan nor his attorney noticed the error, and so did not object to the PSR. See id. The Court sentenced Khan to seventy-eight months in prison. Malik, 2012 WL 6682128, at *1.

         The day before Khan expected to be released, he was informed that his incarceration would continue indefinitely. See Compl. at 11. The United States Probation Office had issued a detainer, believing that Khan's conviction in the Eastern District of Michigan meant that he had violated the terms of his parole from his earlier conviction in the Northern District of Illinois. Within a few months, the United States Parole Commission held a hearing on that issue. See Malik, 2012 WL 6682128, at *1. At the hearing, according to Khan, his counsel failed to present a defense, and did not discuss the terms of Khan's extradition. See Compl. at 12. The Commission found that Khan had violated the terms of his parole and sentenced him to 168 months. See Malik, 2012 WL 6682128, at *1. Khan found this prospect emotionally devastating, " a cause of indescribable duress and . . . negative repercussions on [his] health." Compl. at 12. And he suffered further upon receiving a document indicating that his new sentence was life imprisonment. See id. at 13.

         Khan filed an appeal with the Parole Commission's National Appeals Board, arguing, among other things, that the government lacked jurisdiction under the terms of his extradition. See id. The Board denied the appeal, explaining that Khan's jurisdictional argument was " unsupported by any documentation or other evidence." See Ex. M to Compl. at 90. And it pointed out that, according to the PSR, Khan had waived extradition. See id.

         But Khan persisted. Finally in possession of the documents he needed to prove the circumstances of his extradition, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Compl. at 15-16. The government requested that the court grant Khan's petition, which it did. See Malik, 2012 WL 6682128, at *1. The court explained that the " rule of specialty prohibits the prosecution of an individual for an offense in the country that requested his extradition unless the extraditing country grants his or her extradition for that offense." See Id. at *2. It found that Khan's additional sentence did not fall within the scope of his consent or the terms of the extradition treaty with Canada. Id. at *3. And so, about a year after Khan should have left prison, the court ordered Khan's release. Id.

         After returning to Canada, Khan filed this lawsuit, pro se, seeking ten million dollars in damages from various defendants in connection with his wrongful imprisonment. See Compl. at 28. The government has responded[1] by filing a motion to dismiss. See Gov't's Mot. [ECF No. 19].

         

Page ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.