United States District Court, District of Columbia
RANDOLPH D. MOSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 3, 2017, Plaintiff Zaid Hassan Abd Al-Latif Safarini,
proceeding pro se, brought this action against
various former United States and foreign officials, the
Kingdoms of Thailand and Jordan, and “Thai Airlines
International, ” for allegedly “kidnapping”
him in Bangkok, Thailand in 2001 and transporting him by
force to the United States to stand trial. See Dkt.
1. On August 9, 2017, the Court dismissed Safarini's
claims against the Kingdom of Thailand, the Hashemite Kingdom
of Jordan, and the Thai National Police pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), because foreign states are immune from the
jurisdiction of U.S. courts pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1604.
See Dkt. 12 at 1-2. With respect to Safarini's
claims against “Unknown Immigration Officials” of
the “Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, ” the
Court observed that Safarini had failed to provide sufficient
information to permit the U.S. Marshals Service to effect
service and that “the complaint lack[ed] any allegation
that would permit the Court to conclude that it possesses
personal jurisdiction over any of the foreign officials
Plaintiff seeks to sue.” Dkt. 12 at 4-5. The Court
directed that Safarini (1) “provide the Clerk of the
Court with addresses or other information that would permit
the Marshals Service to effect service on the individual
foreign defendants, ” and (2) “show cause why the
claims against those individuals should not be dismissed for
lack of personal jurisdiction” on or before September
9, 2017. Id. at 5. Safarini failed to respond, and
on October 10, the Court dismissed Safarini's claims as
to the “Unknown Immigration Officials” for the
Kingdom of Thailand, as well as other named foreign
officials, for failure to provide sufficient information upon
which to effect service or to permit the Court to conclude
that it may exercise personal jurisdiction over the
individual foreign defendants. Dkt. 14 at 2. The Court also
dismissed Safarini's claims against “Thai Airline
International” on the ground that he alleged no
plausible claim upon which relief could be granted.
Id. at 1-2.
January 3, 2018, the Court dismissed the remainder of
Safarini's claims asserted in his original complaint,
concluding that Safarini failed to state a claim against the
remaining defendants: former United States officials and
agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See
Safarini v. Ashcroft, 285 F.Supp.3d 407 (D.D.C. 2018).
Thereafter, Safarini filed a motion to vacate the judgment of
the Court and for leave to amend his complaint, Dkt. 19 at 4,
which the Court granted, Minute Order (April 5, 2018). In his
amended complaint, Safarini alleges that “unknown
[o]fficials and/or [a]gents of the Government of the Kingdom
of Thailand” violated the Extradition Treaty between
the United States and Thailand by “assisting in the
facilitation of [Safarini's] summary removal from
Thailand without due process of law, ” Dkt. 22 at 3.
Safarini seeks damages of “not less than [o]ne
[m]illion [d]ollars” from “each defendant.”
extent that Safarini is bringing this action against the
Government of Thailand, “foreign states [are] immune
from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States,
” unless an exception is expressly provided by law. 28
U.S.C. § 1604. In his amended complaint, Safarini
asserts that the FSIA's expropriation exception-which
strips immunity from states in cases where “rights in
property taken in violation of international law are in
issue, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3)-applies here. Dkt.
22 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3)). Although
Safarini alleges that “the acts and omissions of
defendants fall squarely within the ambit [of] the exception,
” he does not allege any facts that, even if accepted
as true, would establish that “‘rights in
property' are ‘in issue.'” See Simon
v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127, 140 (D.C. Cir.
2016). The expropriation exception, accordingly, does not
apply. Alternatively, Safarini contends that immunity is
stripped by 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). That provision,
however, was repealed in 2008. See Pub. L. No.
110-181, Div. A, § 1083(b)(1)(A)(iii), 122 Stat.
341 (2008). “[T]he new terrorism exception to
sovereign immunity, ” which took the place of §
1605(a)(7), Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848,
855 (2009), moreover, requires “an act of torture,
extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or
the provision of material support or resources for such an
act, ” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605A(a)(1), and thus has no
bearing on Plaintiff's claims. The Court, therefore,
concludes that the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand is
immune from suit and, accordingly, dismisses Safarini's
claims against the Thai government.
extent that Safarini seeks to bring suit against
“unknown Officials and/or Agents of the Government of
the Kingdom of Thailand” in their individual
capacities, he once again has failed to provide any
information that would permit the Marshals Service to effect
service. Moreover, even if the Court were able to serve the
individual foreign defendants (and even if they were to waive
any objection to personal jurisdiction), Safarini alleges
only two counts, neither of which states a claim. For the
reasons described above, his claim under the terrorism
provision to the FSIA fails as a matter of law. And his claim
that the unidentified officials violated the Extradition
Treaty between the United States and Thailand by
“assisting in the facilitation of [Safarini's]
summary removal from Thailand without due process of law,
” Dkt. 22 at 3, fails for want of a cause of action.
“[I]nternational agreements, even those directly
benefitting private persons, generally do not create private
rights or provide for a private cause of action . . . in the
absence of express language to the contrary.”
Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 1357 n.3 (2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Nothing in the plain
language of the U.S.-Thailand Extradition Treaty creates a
private right of action for U.S. citizens, let alone for
foreign nationals seeking damages from foreign individuals.
See Treaty Relating to Extradition, Thai.-U.S., Dec.
14, 1983, S. Treat Doc. No. 98-16 (1984). Nor does Safarini
identify any other available cause of action.
Court, will, accordingly, dismiss Safarini's amended
complaint sua sponte. Because the Court has
permitted Safarini the opportunity to replead, and because
the Court concludes that that he “cannot possibly win
relief” under the facts and legal theories presented,
see Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342,
1349 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Baker v. Dir., United
States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir.
1990) (per curiam)), the Court will now dismiss
Safarini's complaint with prejudice.
reasons explained above, the Court will, sua sponte,
dismiss the complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
separate order will issue.
 Although personal jurisdiction can, of
course, be waived in the ordinary course, it cannot be waived
by an unidentified person who has no ...