Ladeairous v. Rosen
| Decision Date | 24 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-cv-00954 (ABJ) |
| Parties | JOSEPH MICHAEL LADEAIROUS, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY A. ROSEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Defendants, the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Inspector General, have filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff Joseph M. Ladeairous's lawsuit against them. Plaintiff alleges that defendants misused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1810 et seq., and violated his First Amendment rights. For the reasons explained in more detail below, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the case.
Plaintiff filed this matter on June 22, 2015. On October 22, 2015, another court in this District, while screening this matter, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, entered a memorandum opinion, ECF No. 5, and order, ECF No. 6, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and denying plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), finding that plaintiff had accumulated three-strikes under the strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On November 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 7, seeking review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
On March 16, 2018, the District of Columbia Circuit, reversed and vacated the District Court's denial of IFP status, and remanded the matter. Ladeairous v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 1172, 1176 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 16, 2018). The District of Columbia Circuit found that plaintiff has only amassed two strikes, not three. See id. at 1174-76.
Once remanded, plaintiff's IFP application was granted and the case was randomly assigned to this Court. See Jan. 28, 2020 Ord., ECF No. 14. Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19, with accompanying memorandum ("MTD Mem."), plaintiff then filed an opposition ("Opp."), ECF No. 22, to which defendants filed a reply,2 ECF No. 25. This matter is now fully briefed for consideration.
According to the complaint, plaintiff was in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections ("NYDOC") from 1997, until his release on July 22, 2005. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11. On September 7, 2009, he was taken into custody in Virginia, id. ¶ 12, and the following year, he was tried by jury and convicted in the Virginia Circuit Court (Norfolk County) on two counts of robbery and two counts of use of a firearm used in commission of a felony. See Commonwealth v. Ladeairous, Nos. CR09003349-00, CR10000565-00, CR10000565-01, and CR10000565-02 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 6, 2010). Plaintiff asserts that, on October 22, 2010, he received a 44-year sentence, which he is currently serving. Compl. ¶ 12.
Plaintiff's claims are all centered on his self-proclaimed status as an "active Irish republican political supporter in the U.S. from 2000 to present[.]" Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff indicates that he has openly demonstrated his support for the Irish republican cause for approximately two decades. For example, he has purchased Irish republican books and materials, and subscribed, donated, and contributed to, Irish republican-affiliated media outlets, including the "Irish People newspaper" and the "An Phoblatch newspaper of Ireland[.]" Id. In exchange, he has continued to receive correspondence by email from some of those outlets regarding the political climate in Northern Ireland. He also submitted "articles of abuses of Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland" to national newspapers in the United States. Id. Plaintiff's primary focus is what he describes as the government's "continued de-politicalizing of the Irish republican political agenda in the U.S and the effects such has on Irish republican political supporters in the U.S." Id.
Also, plaintiff states that he has corresponded with "the office of the political party Sinn Fein and the Republican Prisoners Action Group in Dublin[,] Ireland" and proposed "ideas to Irish Northern Aid Committee[,]" otherwise known as "Noraid." Id. He has requested that these organizations assist him in halting alleged "abuses and injustices [that] plaintiff has suffered by the U.S. government . . . because of [his] support and interaction of their Irish republican political organizations in the U.S. and Ireland." Id. In similar efforts, plaintiff has attempted to correspond with several United States embassies, informing them of his personal tribulations, and generally "calling on them to aid in the reversing of the anti-Irish republican political sentiment their nation had placed in the U.S. government." Id.
According to plaintiff, these Irish republican newspapers and Noraid, have "been forced by the U.S. government to register as agents of a foreign power pursuant to Foreign Agents Registration Act (F.A.R.A.)" due to their affiliation with the Irish Republican Army ("IRA"). Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff also contends that Sinn Fein, as well as "[t]he Provisional Irish Republican Army (P.I.R.A.), the Continuity Irish Republican Army (C.I.R.A.)[,] and the Real Irish Republican Army (R.I.R.A.)[,] are all controversially designated by the U.S. State Department pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1189 designations of a foreign terrorist organization (F.T.O.)." Id.
The gravamen of the complaint though, is that because of his relationship with some these organizations, plaintiff believes that he has long been the subject of government-orchestrated surveillance and persecution. See id. ¶¶ 9, 10. Specifically, plaintiff posits that he and all other open the Irish republican cause supporters in the United States, "fall under F.I.S.A. jurisdiction for providing material support to a F.T.O. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2339(B) . . . [and] 50 U.S.C. 1806(k)[.]" Id. ¶ 9. As a result, plaintiff surmises that he has been subject to continuing FISA "investigations and surveillances" coordinated by "federal[,] state[,] and local authorities formally and in[]formally without check due to the removal of the U.S. department of Justice Office of intelligence policy and review (O.I.P.R.)." Id.
Plaintiff hypothesizes that this wide-scale government investigation has revealed itself in multiple ways throughout the years. See id. ¶¶10-16. He alleges that, while he was designated to NYDOC, he endured various forms of mistreatment, including: unfair placement in solitary confinement, forced starvation, and categorization as a "terrorist sympathizer." Id. ¶ 10. He believes that these actions were devised entirely as a form of retaliation for his status as an Irish republican ally, in a coordinated effort between New York authorities and the federal government. See id.
He then alleges that "[o]nce released from [NYDOC] . . . plaintiff would be the target of aggressive surveillances from 2005-2008[,] at which time plaintiff would experience a barrage of injustices as a pretext for plaintiff[']s Irish republican support." Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff lists examples of these alleged injustices, including incidents of police brutality and additional "bogus" arrests and criminal charges, which in turn resulted in more mistreatment while he was again in the custody of NYDOC, and subjected him to more solitary confinement, false accusations, and prison disciplinary charges. Yet, he also contends that he was invited by the New York State Inspector General to participate in an investigation to apprehend a corrupt agent involved in plaintiff's ongoing FISA surveillance. See id. During this time, he claims that the State of New York improperly diagnosed him as mentally ill during this time and forced him to take psychotropic medication. This turn of events allegedly had "drastic effects on plaintiff[']s marriage and family relationships[,]" eventually causing him to "flee from New York State to escape the abuses from law enforcement authorities in July 2009[.]" Id.
Shortly thereafter, on September 7, 2009, plaintiff was taken into custody by authorities in Virginia. Id. ¶ 12. He was charged with robbery and assault, but he contends that those charges were merely a ruse so that authorities could interrogate him regarding his potential affiliation with the IRA. See id. He states that in Virginia, he "experience[d] abuses that mirrored those of New York State and City of Yonkers[,]" and he believes that law enforcement in New York and Virginia conspired together against him. See id. Plaintiff alleges that he again faced continued interrogations and isolation while incarcerated in Virginia and awaiting trial. He characterizes his trial as "defenseless," and claims that it resulted in a guilty verdict only because the state court purportedly colluded with the government and intentionally "den[ied] evidence and introduce[ed] frivolous evidence . . . not backed [by] modern science." See id.
Plaintiff was designated to the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") to serve his sentence, and he states that he was immediately "told to sign a statement denouncing any Irish republican political support by a[n] organization investigator on April 1[,] 2011, which plaintiff refused to sign." Id. ¶ 13. He further states that he continues to suffer in isolation and that prison officials still target him by tampering with his mail, forging his signature, and unfairly restricting his access to outside contacts. He attributes all of this alleged mistreatment to the government's belief that he has "terror ties." See id.
Plaintiff also recounts prior litigation that in this district and appeals to the D.C. Circuit, which outcomes he considers unfavorable. See id. ¶ 14. He equates this "blatant improper adjudication by federal courts[,]" to be founded in an overarching governmental scheme to intentionally preclude his "attempts to obtain evidence . . . to confront said injustices . . ." of "unconstitutional treatment by all federal, state[,] and local principalities [with which] plaintiff has had any contact[.]" See id. ¶¶ 14-15, 17-18.
Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial