A.W.S. v. Johnston

Background

Andrew W. Shalaby filed a first amended complaint seeking declaratory relief against Iain D. Johnston. Shalaby alleged that Johnston made factually incorrect statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Johnston’s 2020 application to become a federal judge. Shalaby also alleged that Johnston made false statements to the Executive Committee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois about Shalaby’s conduct at that courthouse.

According to the complaint, the Executive Committee issued an order requiring a U.S. Marshal to accompany Shalaby when he was present at the courthouse. Shalaby alleged that Johnston’s statements were intended to discredit him because Shalaby planned to report Johnston’s statements to the Senate. Shalaby sought declarations concerning Johnston’s statements, the committee’s order, the alleged injury, and whether the order was defamatory on its face.

Johnston moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Sovereign Immunity and the Federal Defendants’ Motion

The court held that sovereign immunity barred the claims concerning Johnston’s alleged communications with the Executive Committee and the resulting order. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the United States unless the government has clearly consented to be sued.

The court treated the requested relief as operating against the federal government, even though Shalaby said he was suing Johnston in his individual capacity. If granted, the requested declaration would require the government to rewrite or rescind an official order and would interfere with the administration of the federal courthouse. The court also concluded that Johnston’s alleged communications fell within the scope of his federal employment. The allegations that the statements were false, knowingly made, or malicious did not take them outside that employment.

The court rejected Shalaby’s reliance on an earlier related proceeding, explaining that the earlier decision addressed appellate jurisdiction over the committee’s order and did not decide sovereign immunity. The court granted the Federal Defendants’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The claims related to the committee’s order were dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice. Because the court found no subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not address the Federal Defendants’ other arguments.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Johnston

The court separately ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Johnston in his individual capacity. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power to require a particular defendant to defend the case in that forum.

The court found no general jurisdiction because Johnston resided in Illinois and, according to the record, had no physical presence, business, property, California taxes, or California-issued licenses. The court also found no specific jurisdiction. The alleged statements to the Senate were made during a hearing in the District of Columbia and did not refer to Shalaby or California. The alleged statements to the Executive Committee occurred in Illinois and concerned conduct occurring solely in Illinois. The court stated that Shalaby’s connection to California, without a meaningful connection between Johnston’s conduct and California, was insufficient.

The court granted Johnston’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without leave to amend. It did not address Johnston’s other dismissal arguments because it found that California lacked personal jurisdiction over him.

Requests for Judicial Notice and Disposition

The court denied Shalaby’s requests for judicial notice because they concerned disputed facts that were not properly subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted both motions to dismiss without leave to amend, ordered that a separate judgment issue, and directed the clerk to close the file. The order resolved the matter on jurisdictional grounds and did not decide whether Shalaby’s allegations about Johnston’s statements were true or whether those statements were defamatory.