Patel v. U.S. Dep't of State

Decision Date02 August 2013
Docket Number11-cv-6-wmc
PartiesARVIND M. PATEL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Arvind M. Patel filed this lawsuit against the United States Department of State (the "State Department"), Diplomatic Security Special Agent Josiah Keats ("Agent Keats") and another, unidentified special agent, alleging, among other things, that he was denied a U.S. passport in violation of his constitutional rights. On July 20, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, but allowed him an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended version of his complaint. The State Department and Agent Keats have once again filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has filed more than one response, including a motion to strike or "dismiss" the Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed by Agent Keats.

In reviewing any pro se litigant's pleadings, the court must construe the claims generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). Having considered all of thepleadings under this lenient standard, the court concludes that Patel has again failed to articulate a viable claim. Accordingly, the case will be dismissed.

FACTS

The following facts are drawn from Patel's first amended complaint.1 The court also considers a letter to Patel from the State Department, dated May 13, 2011, which denied the passport application that forms the basis of Patel's lawsuit.2 (See Dkt. # 48, Letter dated May 13, 2011, Ex. A).

Patel, who currently resides in Mauston, Wisconsin, was born in India in 1941. In 1976, Patel became a United States citizen through naturalization under the name "Arvindkumar Manilal Patel." In 1980, Patel obtained a court order in Cook County,Illinois, which legally changed his name to "Sailash Shah." The State Department granted Patel a United States passport under his new legal name in 1980, 1993, and 1998. The State Department also appears to have granted Patel a passport under his former name (Arvindkumar Manilal Patel) in 1985, 1993, and 1995.

In June 2009, Patel again applied for a new passport under his former name. When asked in that application whether he had ever applied previously for a United States passport, Patel indicated falsely that he had not. (Dkt. # 48, Ex. A). On October 13, 2010, Special Agent Josiah Keats and another, unidentified special agent from the State Department paid a surprise visit to Patel's home with a local police officer (Officer John Nault), who knocked on the door and announced "Mauston Police." Patel "slightly turned [the] door knob," advising that he was "in the shower." After inviting the local policeman to enter, Patel returned to finish his shower. At that time, he "did not know" that the local police officer was accompanied by two federal agents.

After Patel completed his ablutions, he returned to the living room and "found himself surrounded by three [uniformed officers.]" Agent Keats and the other special agent questioned Patel about his 2009 passport application and their suspicion that he was engaged in fraud.3 At some point, Agent Keats stepped outside to make a call on his cell phone. When he did so, the other special agent reportedly told Patel that he couldbe arrested for passport fraud. Interpreting this statement as a threat, Patel became frightened. Patel did not tell the agents to leave his residence, however, because he was "trying to figure out why this hell got loose on him" when he had not committed a crime. While Patel was not arrested or charged with an offense, his 2009 passport application was ultimately denied. (Dkt. # 48, Ex. A).

Patel alleges that he was traumatized by the accusation of fraud made during the special agents' impromptu interview on October 13, 2010. Patel asserts that the special agents' visit to his home was an intrusion upon his right to privacy and that the accusation of fraud was unwarranted because he identified himself under both names during a personal interview with passport officials in 1993. He alleges further that the State Department committed a "serious due process" violation by denying his 2009 passport application without following certain rules found in the Foreign Affairs Manual. Finally, Patel alleges that he was denied a passport for racially discriminatory reasons.

Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Patel seeks $1 million in damages from the State Department for violating his right to due process and equal protection. Arguing further that his passport was denied as the result of racial discrimination, Patel seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the State Department under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") in the form of a "fee-free passport under either name." Patel also seeks $15,000 from each special agent for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment during their surprise visit to his home.

OPINION
I. Motions Under Rule 12(b)(6)

The defendants urge that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The federal pleading rules do not require "heightened fact pleading of specifics," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), or "detailed factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) (requiring only "a short and plain statement of the claim" showing that the pleader is entitled to relief). Still, to withstand a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff fails to plead enough facts to state a claim for relief that is "plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citation omitted). A claim has facial plausibility for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6), "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); McCauley v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2011) (following the plausibility standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly).

When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a reviewing court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Complaints filed by pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal construction and, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringentstandards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, a plaintiff must provide "more than the unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 552 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). Likewise, courts are not bound to accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements," or legal conclusions couched as factual assertions. Id.

II. Claims Against the State Department

Patel alleges that the State Department violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process and equal protection when it denied his passport. Specifically, he alleges that the State Department violated his right to due process by dispatching agents to his home instead of sending an "Information Request Letter" to verify his identity in compliance with its own internal procedures. He alleges further that this conduct violated his right to equal protection because, as a "minority-elderly Asian-American USA citizen," he was treated differently from other passport applicants.

A. Monetary Damages

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege that a "person" acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.4 London v. RBS Citizens, N.A.,600 F.3d 742, 745-46 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). As a federal agency, the State Department is neither a person nor a state actor for purposes of liability under § 1983. See District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 423-24 (1973); see also Hindes v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 137 F.3d 148, 159 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that a federal agency is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983) (citations omitted); United States v. Vital Health Prods., Ltd., 786 F. Supp. 761, 778 (E.D. Wis. 1992) (same).

Although Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), authorizes a remedy comparable to § 1983 for civil rights violations committed by federal actors, such a claim is available against individual agents only. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 483-86 (1994). For this reason, neither the United States nor agencies like the State Department are proper parties under Bivens. See Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71 (2001). Patel does not articulate any other viable claim for monetary damages against the State Department.5 Because this presents anincurable defect, Patel's claim for monetary damages against the State Department will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6).

B. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Arguing that the State Department failed to follow internal procedures for requesting additional information from passport applicants, Patel maintains that he was denied due process and that he is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under the APA. Assuming that there was a failure to comply with the Foreign Affairs Manual,6 the State Department maintains that it is neither actionable under the APA nor implicates a constitutional violation.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT