Pierre v. Consulate General of Haiti

Background

Marc Pierre proceeded without a lawyer and was permitted to file without paying the filing fee. He brought the action under the Alien Tort Statute, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain tort claims involving violations of international law. He described the action as a class action and sought relief on behalf of Haiti and other individuals, identifying himself as a lead plaintiff.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed claims brought on behalf of Haiti and other individuals and gave Pierre 30 days to assert claims on his own behalf. Pierre then filed a 788-page amended complaint. He sought to address what he described as a violation of procedural due process involving the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, a 2018 declaration concerning Haiti, and a later Tabula-Rasa Accord. The amended complaint named the Consulate General of Haiti, certain Core Group members from France, Canada, and the United States, and Haiti’s current Prime Minister, Ariel Henry.

Pierre alleged that he brought his 2018 Haiti Declaration to the Consulate General of Haiti in New York and asked consular staff to forward it for consideration. He said staff did not process the document and refused to let him meet with the person in charge of the consulate. He also alleged that he sent a copy to the United Nations Secretary-General but received no response. He later continued seeking consideration of the declaration and the Tabula-Rasa Accord.

Court’s analysis

The court first concluded that the Alien Tort Statute did not support Pierre’s claims. The court explained that the statute applies to civil actions by an alien for a tort committed in violation of international law or a treaty. Pierre instead sought an order requiring officials and governments to respond to his submissions. Because the statute did not provide jurisdiction for that request, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the statute.

The court construed the amended complaint as also seeking mandamus relief, meaning an order compelling an official to perform a required duty. The court denied that request because federal mandamus jurisdiction extends to officers or employees of the United States or federal agencies, not the foreign actors Pierre sought to compel.

The court dismissed any claims against the United States under sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government unless the government has waived that protection. The court noted that Pierre’s claims did not qualify for the tort-based waiver discussed in the order because they did not sound in tort.

The court also dismissed the claims against Prime Minister Henry, Canada, and France under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court treated Canada and France as foreign states and Prime Minister Henry as an instrumentality of a foreign state. It found that Pierre’s allegations did not fit any exception to the immunity provided by that statute.

Finally, the court treated the claims against the Consulate General of Haiti as claims against the Chef de Poste, the person in charge of the consular office. The court applied the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which provides immunity for acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. It held that preventing Pierre from meeting with the Chef de Poste about his declaration and accord fell within the Chef de Poste’s management and supervision of the consular office. The Chef de Poste was therefore immune from the claims based on that conduct.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed all claims against the United States under sovereign immunity, all claims against Prime Minister Henry, Canada, and France under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the claims against the Consulate General of Haiti, construed as claims against the Chef de Poste, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The court denied further leave to amend because Pierre had already been given an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment. Because the action was dismissed, defendants were not required to respond. The court directed the clerk not to process Pierre’s proposed default judgment and certificates of default, ordered the action closed, and directed entry of judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.