United States District Court, D. Columbia
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
KHAN, also known as ARSHAD ALI MALIK, Plaintiff, Pro se,
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,
BATES, United States District Judge.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 by filing a motion to
dismiss. See Gov't's Mot. [ECF No. 19].