Medcqm v. United States Department of State

Background

Max A. Medcqm, who proceeded without a lawyer, traveled to Kenya in September 2020 while intending to reach Rwanda. After deciding to remain in Kenya, he sought passport services at the United States Embassy in Nairobi. Medcqm alleged that he is deaf and was not given reasonable communication assistance, such as a sign-language interpreter or other resources. He said he had to communicate with embassy employees using pen and paper.

Medcqm also alleged that Jane Doe treated him aggressively and favored white citizens over him, that he received a passport valid for only three months instead of a full-validity passport, and that embassy personnel did not properly assist him in returning to the United States. He alleged that John Doe later found him near his residence, said his first name publicly, and may have used passport information to locate him. Medcqm believed Kenyan police then searched for him, causing him to flee. In February 2023, he received a repatriation loan and returned to the United States.

Medcqm asserted ten claims against the State Department, Jane Doe, and John Doe, including claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, a civil-conspiracy claim, and claims under the Privacy Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Administrative Procedure Act. He also asserted constitutional damages claims against Jane Doe and John Doe in their individual capacities. The State Department moved to dismiss, and Medcqm moved for sanctions against the State Department’s counsel.

Rulings on the State Department’s motion

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and considered whether the complaint alleged enough facts to make relief plausible.

Constitutional claims. The court dismissed the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment claims against the State Department for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Congress had not waived the United States’ sovereign immunity for those claims. The court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection provision applies to state actors, not federal officials. To the extent Medcqm intended to assert equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, the court dismissed that claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as well.

Privacy Act claims. Medcqm alleged that John Doe improperly disclosed his passport information by finding him and publicly saying, “Max, Max, Max.” The court held that the alleged disclosure of only Medcqm’s first name, without additional information of the type covered by the Privacy Act’s definition of a record, was insufficient. The court also found that accessing information was different from disclosing it, and that Medcqm did not plausibly connect the alleged disclosure to the harms he claimed after fleeing. The court dismissed the Privacy Act claims.

Civil-conspiracy claim. Medcqm asserted a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against the State Department, Jane Doe, and John Doe in their official capacities. The court held that Congress had not waived sovereign immunity for that claim and dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim. Medcqm alleged that he was instructed to list Somalia as his location on a repatriation-loan application in 2021 and that a 2023 repatriation loan should have included money for medication and eyeglasses. The court held that the 2021 claim failed because Medcqm did not complete or submit the application, so it was not rejected. The court held that the 2023 loan was granted and that Medcqm did not allege that the requested additional expenses were among the medical expenses permitted under the applicable policy. For both allegations, he also did not provide facts showing that the State Department approved loans for similarly qualified applicants. The court dismissed the claim.

Rehabilitation Act claim. Medcqm alleged that the Embassy discriminated against him by failing to provide communication assistance. The court held that the Rehabilitation Act applies only to discrimination occurring in the United States. Because Medcqm alleged that the discrimination occurred in Kenya, the court dismissed the claim.

Administrative Procedure Act claim. Medcqm argued that the Embassy employees’ decision to communicate with him using paper and pen rather than an interpreter was a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that the decision did not complete the agency’s decision-making process and did not determine rights or obligations, so it was not a final agency action. Medcqm also argued in briefing that the three-month passport decision was reviewable, but that argument was not included in his Second Amended Complaint. The court stated that even if he were allowed to amend, that issue would be moot because a one-year passport would already have expired in 2022.

Claims against Jane Doe and John Doe individually. The State Department’s motion did not include the individual-capacity claims, but the court considered whether it could dismiss them under the federal statute allowing dismissal of claims that fail to state a claim when a party is proceeding without a lawyer. Medcqm invoked Bivens, a limited judge-made damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. The court held that his claims presented a new Bivens context because they did not involve the types of conduct recognized in the existing Bivens cases. It further held that the alleged conduct occurred entirely in Kenya and that Congress had not authorized damages for injuries inflicted outside the United States. The court dismissed the Bivens claims against Jane Doe and John Doe in their individual capacities.

Motion for sanctions

Medcqm sought sanctions, alleging that the State Department’s counsel misrepresented facts to the court. The court stated that a sanctions motion must be served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and generally cannot be filed until the challenged material has not been withdrawn or corrected during the required 21-day period. The court found that Medcqm did not appear to have served the motion as required. Even apart from that procedural problem, the court found no sanctionable conduct and denied the motion for sanctions.

Disposition

The court granted the State Department’s motion to dismiss. It ordered that Medcqm’s claims against all defendants be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. Donovan W. Frank signed the order as United States District Judge.