Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran Inc.

• Citation: 197 F.3d 161
• Decision Date: 29 November 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-30235,INC,FREEPORT-MCMORA,98-30235
• Parties: (5th Cir. 1999) TOM BEANAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ET AL., Plaintiffs, TOM BEANAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v., AND FREEPORT MCMORAN COPPER AND GOLD, INC. Defendants-Appellees
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 161

197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 1999)

TOM BEANAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ET AL., Plaintiffs, TOM BEANAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREEPORT-MCMORAN, INC., AND FREEPORT MCMORAN COPPER AND GOLD, INC. Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-30235

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT

November 29, 1999

Martin E. Regan, Jr. (argued), Regan, Manasseh & Boshea, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John Charles Reyond (argued), Michael Richard Schroeder, Virginia W. Gundlach, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, John S. Keller, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.

J.Martin Wagner (argued), Earth Justie Legal Defense Fund, San Francisco, CA, for Sierra Club and Earthrights Intern., Amicus Curiae.

Richard Herz, Earthrights Intern., Lake Oswego, OR, for Earthrights Intern., Amicus Curiae.

Jennifer M. Green, New York City, for The Center for Constitutional Rights, The Center for Justice and Accountability and The Four Directions Council, Amicus Curiae.

Beth Stephens, New York City, for The Center for Constitutional Rights, Amicus Curiae.

Susan Shawn Roberts, Beth Van Schaack, San Francisco, CA, for The Center for Justice and Accountability, Amicus Curiae.

Russell Barsh, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, for The Four Directions Council, Amicus Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:

Tom Beanal ("Beanal") brought suit against the defendants in federal district court for alleged violations of international law. The district court dismissed Beanal's claims pursuant to FED.R.CIV.PROC. 12(b)(6). After a careful review of Beanal's pleadings, we affirm the district court.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case involves alleged violations of international law committed by domestic corporations conducting mining activities abroad in the Pacific Rim. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., and Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold, Inc., ("Freeport"), are Delaware corporations with headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana. Freeport operates the "Grasberg Mine," an open pit copper, gold, and silver mine situated in the Jayawijaya Mountain in Irian Jaya, Indonesia. The mine encompasses approximately 26,400 square kilometers. Beanal is a resident of Tamika, Irian Jaya within the Republic of Indonesia (the "Republic"). He is also the leader of the Amungme Tribal Council of Lambaga Adat Suki Amungme (the "Amungme"). In August 1996, Beanal filed a complaint against Freeport in federal district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana for alleged violations of international law. Beanal invoked jurisdiction under (1) 28 U.S.C. 1332, (2) the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, and (3) the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, sec. 1, et seq., 28 U.S.C. 1350 note. In his First Amended Complaint, he alleged that Freeport engaged in environmental abuses, human rights violations, and cultural genocide. Specifically, he alleged that Freeport mining operations had caused harm and injury to the Amungme's environment and habitat. He further alleged that Freeport engaged in cultural genocide by destroying the Amungme's habitat and religious symbols, thus forcing the Amungme to relocate. Finally, he asserted that Freeport's private security force acted in concert with the Republic to violate international human rights. Freeport moved to dismiss Beanal's claims under FED.R.CIV.PROC.12(b)(6). The district court in April 1997 issued a thorough forty-nine page Opinion and Order dismissing Beanal's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. See Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, 969 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.La. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 12(e), the district court instructed Beanal to amend his complaint to state more specifically his claims of genocide and individual human rights violations. In August 1997, the district court granted Freeport's motion to strike Beanal's Second Amended Complaint because Beanal inappropriately attempted to add third parties. At the motion to strike hearing, the court again instructed Beanal to plead facts sufficient to support his allegations of genocide and individual human rights violations. In March 1998, the district court granted Freeport's motion to strike Beanal's Third Amended Complaint and dismissed his claims with prejudice. Beanal now appeals the district court's rulings below.¹

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted de novo. See Lowrey v. Texas A & M University System, 117 F.3d 242, 246 (5th Cir. 1997). A motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir.1982). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the complaint must be taken as true. Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir.1986). The district court may not dismiss a complaint under rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). This strict standard of review under rule 12(b)(6) has been summarized as follows: "The question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." CHARLES A.. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1357, at 601 (1969).

III. DISCUSSION

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint will be deemed inadequate only if it fails to (1) provide notice of circumstances which give rise to the claim, or (2) set forth sufficient information to outline the elements of the claim or permit inferences to be drawn that these elements exist. See General Star Indemnity, Co. v. Vesta Fire Ins., Corp., 173 F.3d 946, 950. (5th Cir. 1999). If a complaint is ambiguous or does not contain sufficient information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper remedy is a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). See 5 WRIGHT & MILLER, FED. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: Civil 1356 at 590-591. Finally, a complaint, which contains a "bare bones" allegation that a wrong occurred and which does not plead any of the facts giving rise to the injury, does not provide adequate notice. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 904 F.2d, 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990). Because the claims raised in Beanal's First and Third Amended Complaints overlap, we address them together.²

A. Alien Tort Statute

Beanal claims that Freeport engaged in conduct that violated the Alien Tort Statute (the "ATS" or "1350"). Under 1350:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

Section 1350 confers subject matter jurisdiction when the following conditions are met; (1) an alien sues, (2) for a tort, (3) that was committed in violation of the "law of nations" or a treaty of the United States. See Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir. 1995). Beanal does not claim that Freeport violated a United States treaty. Thus, the issue before us is whether Beanal states claims upon which relief can be granted for violations under the "law of nations," i.e., international law.

We observed in 1985, "[t]he question of defining 'the law of nations' is a confusing one which is hotly debated, chiefly among academics." Carmichael v. United Technologies Corp., 835 F.2d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 1985). However, in Cohen v. Harman, 634 F.2d 318, 319 (5th Cir. 1981)(per curiam), we "held that the standards by which nations regulate their dealings with one another inter se constitutes the 'law of nations.'" These standards include the rules of conduct which govern the affairs of this nation, acting in its national capacity, in relationships with any other nation. See id. (quoting Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 259 F.Supp. 324 (E.D. Pa. 1966)). The law of nations is defined by customary usage and clearly articulated principles of the international community. One of the means of ascertaining the law of nations is "by consulting the work of jurists writing professedly on public law or by the general usage and practice of nations; or by judicial decisions recognizing and enforcing that law." See Carmichael, 835 F.2d at 113 (citing United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 152, 160-61, 5 L.Ed. 57 (1820), see also Kadic, 70 F.2d at 238; Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 880 (2d Cir. 1980). Courts "must interpret international law not as it was in 1789. but as it has evolved and exists among the nations of the world today." Kadic 70 F.2d at 238; Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 881. Although Beanal's claims raise complex issues of international law; nonetheless, the task before us does not require that we resolve them. We are only required to determine whether the pleadings on their face state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the day may come when we will have to join other jurisdictions who have tackled head-on complex issues involving international law, "[t]his case, however, does not require that we stand up and be counted." Carmichael, 835 F.2d. at 113. Beanal's allegations under the ATS can be divided into three categories:(1) individual human rights violations; (2) environmental torts; and (3) genocide and cultural genocide. We address each in turn.

1. Individual Human Rights Violations

First, Beanal claims that his...