Stone v. United States Dep't of State
| Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-3244 (RC) |
| Parties | JACK STONE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Re Document Nos.: 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 22
Plaintiff Jack Stone, proceeding pro se, claims that the United States Embassy in Tokyo and the Department of State (collectively, “Defendants”) have unlawfully refused to issue citizenship and immigration documents that he requested for his two putative children and wife. Following submission of his complaint in the instant matter on December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a series of motions, “declarations,” and other filings, some of which repeated Plaintiff's challenges to Defendants' requirements for issuing those documents and his demands that Defendants be compelled to provide the documents. Others raised new claims and sought relief not included in Plaintiff's complaint. On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions (“Motion to Dismiss”).
Plaintiff and Defendants submitted the aforementioned filings prior to the Court's minute order on April 18, 2022 construing one of Plaintiff's declarations as a motion to file a supplemental pleading challenging Defendants' actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and prior to Defendants filing the administrative record on May 18, 2022. The Court will now construe Plaintiff's additional filings containing new claims and requests for relief as motions for leave to amend the complaint. However, the Court will also, for the reasons explained below: (1) deny Plaintiff's premature motions predating Defendants' final agency action and filing of the administrative record (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 22); (2) deny Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend the complaint; and (3) grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14), without prejudice to the Court's consideration of these motions on the merits as to the claims that remain live. As Plaintiff's claims related to the passports, Consular Report of Birth Abroad (“CRBA”), and Social Security number remain live as described below, the Court will in a separate opinion rule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) as to the merits of Plaintiff's remaining claims.
The instant case comes to this Court with a complicated factual history that has been recounted in part in this Court's opinions in Plaintiff's prior case, Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo (“Stone I”), No. 19-3273, which arose out of facts and allegations overlapping substantially with those here. See, e.g., Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo, No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 4260711 (D.D.C. July 24, 2020); Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo, No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 6701078 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2020); Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo, No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 6746925 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2020), aff'd, No. 20-5360, 2021 WL 2255016 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2021). Stone I, the complaint for which was filed in February 2019, concluded in April 2021. The Court presumes familiarity with those prior opinions and will describe only the facts and allegations relevant to the pending filings at issue in this opinion.
On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his wife, Miyuki Suzuki, had abducted his two putative children, M.S. and S.S., to an unknown location and that he had been unable to contact Ms. Suzuki since November 1, 2021. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' refusal to issue passports for the two children is in part “responsible for the current reabduction situation,” id. ¶ 43, which has also prevented Plaintiff from being able to obtain a CRBA and Social Security number for S.S., id. ¶¶ 120-29.
Plaintiff's complaint objects to Defendants' requirements for issuing the passports for M.S. and S.S. and the CRBA for S.S.-which Plaintiff has been unable to meet-as “arbitrary,” id. ¶¶ 30, 126-28, and alleges that Defendants have arbitrarily delayed scheduling his wife's visa interview by, in part, providing a purportedly inaccessible web link for the application, id. ¶¶ 57-118.
Plaintiff's complaint seeks an order compelling Defendants to: (1) issue passports for the two children, id. ¶¶ 52-54; (2) either issue a visa for his wife or schedule a “final interview” necessary for executing the visa application, id. at 1, ¶¶ 103, 118; and (3) waive the requirement that S.S. appear in person for an application for a CRBA and then issue said CRBA and a Social Security number for S.S. should Plaintiff be able to prove that S.S. satisfies the requirements for U.S. citizenship, id. at 17, ¶¶ 119-30. Despite filing this complaint in December 2021, Plaintiff did not in fact execute the applications at issue in the instant matter, necessary for requesting a passport for M.S. and for a passport and CRBA for S.S., until January 13, 2022. See Pl.'s Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 29.
Over the next few months, Plaintiff then filed numerous motions, “declarations,” and other documents, which the Court has sought to distill into comprehensible claims and requests for relief. Some of these filings restate his complaint's claims and requests for relief regarding the passports, CRBA, Social Security number, and visa. Others raise additional claims and seek relief not previously included in Plaintiff's complaint. First, Plaintiff challenges Defendants' non-implementation of certain measures under the “Goldman Act”[1] against Japan and seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to implement those measures. Pl.'s Suppl. Mem. (Mandamus) to Mot. to Compel 1, 4, ECF No. 12; Pl.'s Mot. for Mandamus and Inj. Relief to Compel Goldman Act Sanctions 9, ECF No. 22. Second, Plaintiff asks that the Court “forward” the matter to the Attorney General and request that the Department of Justice bring criminal charges against Plaintiff's wife, her parents, and a third party. Pl.'s Mot. for Court to Request the Dep't of Justice File Crim. Charges 7, ECF No. 17; Pl.'s Decl. 5-7, ECF No. 6. Third, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to conduct welfare checks on the two children. Pl.'s Emer. Mot. to Compel Child Welfare Check 13, ECF No. 11; Pl.'s Emer. Decl. 5, ECF No. 27. Fourth, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to engage Japan's Central Authority and request that Japan issue a return order for one of Plaintiff's children under the “Hague Convention.”[2] Pl.'s Emer. Mot. to Compel Defs. to Engage Japan's Central Authorities 7, ECF No. 18. Fifth, Plaintiff would have this Court compel that Yellow Notices be issued for Plaintiff's wife and children, Pl.'s Emer. Mot. for Court to Order Interpol Yellow Notice 3, ECF No. 13, or that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) request that Interpol issue such Yellow Notices, Pl.'s Decl. 3, 11, ECF No. 6.[3] Sixth, and finally, Plaintiff also appears to raise a supplemental claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the FBI. Pl.'s Decl. 2, ECF No. 6.
On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, contending that: (1) Plaintiff's claims regarding the passports, CRBA, Social Security number, and visa are barred by res judicata; (2) that Plaintiff's claim under the FTCA should be dismissed because injunctive relief is not available under the FTCA, Plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies, and Plaintiff's claim is barred by the foreign country exception; and (3) Plaintiff's claim seeking issuance of Interpol notices must fail because the FBI and Interpol are not parties to the case, Plaintiff's wife is an indispensable party but cannot be joined to the case, and requesting that Interpol issue a Yellow Notice is an enforcement activity that cannot be reviewed under the APA. Defs.' Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss 13-26, ECF. No. 14-1.
On April 18, 2022, the Court issued a minute order noting that one of Plaintiff's “declarations” had referred to “arbitrary agency action” and attached documents indicating what appeared to be Defendants' final actions on April 15, 2022 denying Plaintiff's requests that passports be issued for M.S. and S.S. and that a CBRA be issued for the latter child. As explained in its minute order, the Court construed this “declaration” as a motion to file a supplemental pleading challenging Defendants' final agency action under the APA, and ordered that Defendants file a dispositive motion in response. Pursuant to the Court's order, Defendants then filed the administrative record in this matter on May 18, 2022. Admin. R., ECF No. 31.
To meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). To survive a motion to dismiss, the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Requiri...
To continue reading
Request your trial