United States District Court, District of Columbia
plaintiff is a citizen of the Dominican Republic, ECF No. 1
(Compl.) at 1, who was extradited to stand trial in the
United States pursuant to an extradition treaty between the
two countries, id. at 2. According to the plaintiff,
"when the extradition of a national is granted, a
penalty greater than the maximum established in the country
will not be applied." Id. He alleges that the
35-year prison term imposed upon him is unlawful because it
causes him "to serve five ... extra years in prison in
clear violation of the extradition treaty and the Dominican
Republic Constitution." Id. at 3.
plaintiff brings this action against the Dominican Republic,
its Ambassador, Consul General, and Cansillier, alleging that
these defendants "failed to protect" him.
Id. at 2. First, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendants "breach[ed] their fiduciary duty owed to
[him] as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Dominican
Republic." Id. at 3 (Count One). Second, the
plaintiff claims that the defendants deprived him "of
access and protection of the Consulate as required by Article
5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations."
Id. (Count Two). Third, the plaintiff asserts that
the defendants abandoned him "to the vices and devices
of a foreign government contrary to the Dominican Republic
Constitution by allow[ing] [him] to serve five (5) extra
years in prison in clear violation of the extradition treaty
and Dominican Republic Constitution." Id.
(Count Three). For these actions, the plaintiff "demands
the sum certain of $100, 000, 000 ... in United States
currency from [the defendants] collectively in their
individual/official capacity for denial of access to consular
services, breach of duty, abandonment and failure to protect
[him] despite repeated request[s] for assistance."
Court previously issued an order to show cause why this civil
action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. ECF No. 4. Insofar as the plaintiff purports to
raise a tort claim against a foreign state, and a foreign
state ordinarily is immune from suit in United States courts,
see Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848, 851
(2009), the plaintiff was directed to identify the
provision(s) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act under
which he brings his claims. The plaintiff has responded to
the order to show cause, ECF No. 5, and has submitted an
amended complaint, ECF No. 6. According to the plaintiff, the
Dominican Republic waived its immunity "by signing the
extradition document [thereby agreeing] that the Plaintiff
would not be subject to more than 30 years confinement in the
United States." ECF No. 6 (Am. Compl.) at 2. The Court
is not persuaded.
it is not clear which "extradition document" the
plaintiff is referring to. To the extent the plaintiff means
to refer to a document specific to his case and separate from
the overarching extradition treaty signed by the United
States and the Dominican Republic, he has not provided that
document to the Court or made any specific allegations about
its contents. The Court therefore has no basis for concluding
that the document served as an implied or express waiver of
foreign sovereign immunity, as opposed to a mere agreement
plaintiffs waiver argument is equally unavailing if premised
on the underlying extradition treaty between the United
States and the Dominican Republic. "In the absence of
specific language in [a] treaty waiving ... sovereign
immunity ..., the treaty must be interpreted in accord with
the rule that treaty violations are normally to be redressed
outside the courtroom." Canadian Tramp. Co. v.
United States, 663 F.2d 1081, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The
extradition treaty does not include any language
suggesting a waiver of the Dominican Republic's sovereign
immunity-let alone the "specific language" this
Circuit requires. Id; see Convention Between the
United States & the Dominican Republic for the
Extradition of Criminals, 36 Stat 2468 (no mention of waiver
or sovereign immunity). Nor is the plaintiff aided by his
passing reference to another treaty, the United Nations
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, see Compl. at 2-3, because
that treaty likewise does not mention waiver or immunity,
see Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 281.L.M. 493, 493 (1989).
addition to failing to establish a waiver of foreign
sovereign immunity, the plaintiff has failed to establish
that his "extradition document" or any related
treaties create a private right of action. Medellin v.
Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 506 n.3 (2008) (explaining the
"background presumption" that "international
agreements, even those directly benefiting private persons,
generally do not create private rights or provide for a
private cause of action in domestic courts" and noting
that "a number of the Court of Appeals," including
the D.C. Circuit, "have presumed that treaties do not
create privately enforceable rights in the absence of express
language to the contrary" (alteration adopted and
internal quotation marks omitted)). The plaintiff invokes the
ATS, which confers federal jurisdiction over certain torts
committed in violation of international treaties, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1350, but that statute applies only to "suits
against private defendants, not against foreign
sovereigns," and is therefore inapplicable.
Mohammadi, 782 F.3d at 17.
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it will dismiss
the complaint, as amended, and this civil action without
prejudice. An order is issued separately.
 Although the plaintiff does not
provide a copy of (or discernible citation to) the
extradition treaty on which he relies, he appears to refer to
the treaty ratified by the United States on August 26, 1910.
See Convention Between the United States & the
Dominican Republic for the Extradition of Criminals, 36 Stat
2468 (Aug. 26, 1910).
 It is well established that the Alien
Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, on which the
plaintiff relies for his cause of action, "does not
confer any waiver of foreign sovereign immunity" and
that "[t]he FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining
jurisdiction over a foreign state" in an ATS action.
Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran,782 F.3d 9,