Oyelakin v. Officials of Ikeja Electric Distribution Company

Background

Mutiu Adesina Oyelakin, appearing without a lawyer, sued officials and entities in Nigeria. He alleged ongoing persecution, emotional torture, and cruel and degrading treatment. He connected those allegations to a March 2018 electricity disconnection by Ikeja Electric after he complained about allegedly arbitrary and discriminatory billing and advocated for Muslim students concerning school-placement examinations. He alleged that the events caused hypertension and depression and that defendants denied him due process by failing to respond to his requests for a hearing and an official response. He also asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

The court held that the Nigerian governmental entities were agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state and therefore immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, unless an exception applied. The court concluded that Oyelakin’s allegations did not fit any applicable exception. The court noted that, although Oyelakin alleged Ikeja Electric was nongovernmental, it would not treat Ikeja as a governmental agency for purposes of the order.

Alien Tort Statute and Convention Against Torture

The court dismissed the Alien Tort Statute claims because the alleged tortious conduct occurred in Nigeria. Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that statute, the court explained, it could not exercise jurisdiction when all relevant conduct occurred outside the United States.

The court also dismissed the claims under the United Nations Convention Against Torture for failure to state a claim. It explained that the Convention is not self-executing and does not create a private right to sue. The federal statutes implementing it authorize criminal prosecutions for torture abroad but do not give a private citizen the right to bring this type of lawsuit.

Torture Victim Protection Act

The Torture Victim Protection Act allows a claim against an individual who, under the authority or apparent authority of a foreign nation, subjects another person to torture or extrajudicial killing. The court emphasized that the statute requires extreme and unusually cruel conduct and that not every allegation of mistreatment or official abuse qualifies as torture.

The court ruled that Oyelakin had not alleged torture as the statute defines it. His allegations that his electricity was disconnected after his complaints and advocacy, and that the resulting stress contributed to hypertension and depression requiring medication, did not support an inference of the extreme physical force required by the statute.

Leave to Amend and Litigation Warning

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. The court also referred to two prior related proceedings involving similar claims and warned that future complaints found to be duplicative, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise lacking merit could lead to an order requiring Oyelakin to show why he should not be barred from filing new civil actions without prior permission.

Disposition

The court dismissed Oyelakin’s claims for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds. It denied the motion for pro bono counsel as moot, denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.