Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01102/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01102-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK C. BERGERON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1102 FCD GGH PS

vs.

KING MOHAMED VI, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se on the amended complaint

filed September 26, 2005, has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R.

72-302(c)(21). 

On July 20, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and granted him leave to amend. In his amended complaint, plaintiff

again fails to establish a jurisdictional basis for this court to hear his claims. Because this court

lacks jurisdiction over this matter, the undersigned recommends that the case be dismissed with

prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s complaint stems from injuries he suffered in Morocco in 2002. 

Plaintiff alleges that while staying at a Moroccan citizen’s private residence, a “butane gas

driven” hot water heater malfunctioned, causing, among other things, asphyxiation from carbon

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 “It is generally recognized that a suit against an individual acting in his official capacity

is the practical equivalent of a suit against the sovereign directly.” Chuidian v. Philippine Nat’l

Bank, 912 F.2d 1095, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S.

658, 690 n.55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035 n.55 (1978)). 

2

monoxide, severe burns to his body, subsequent amputation of his left forearm and hand, and

resultant brain damage and memory loss. Plaintiff seeks damages from Morocco and its king,

King Mohamed VI. Plaintiff’s claims against King Mohamed VI are interchangeable with those

against the state and are based on King Mohamed’s alleged responsibility for “any and all

occurrences of each and every type that have occurred or may occur within the Sovereign

State/Kingdom.” Accordingly, the undersigned treats these claims as claims against the state of

Morocco.1

As in its order of July 20, 2005, the court will assume plaintiff invokes

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (jurisdiction over a foreign state). Plaintiff discusses

his claims at length in the context of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. Plaintiff’s invocation of the FSIA, however, does not by itself confer

jurisdiction on this court to hear plaintiff’s claims. Even if it did, plaintiff has failed to show

how defendants are exempt from the general presumption of immunity as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

1604. That provision states in relevant part, “a foreign state shall be immune from the

jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections

1605 to 1607.” Under this provision, foreign states are presumed to be immune from the

jurisdiction of the United States courts unless one of the exceptions to immunity set forth in the

FSIA applies. Moore v. United Kingdom, 384 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004). 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

It appears that plaintiff seeks to invoke the tortious activity exception to

jurisdictional immunity set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5)(A) and (B). (A.C. p. 2, at 18-25; p.3,

at 1-5). Those sections provide in relevant part:

a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United

States or of the States in any case . . . in which money damages are sought against

a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property,

occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that

foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting

within the scope of his employment; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

. . . any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or

perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or

any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander,

misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.

28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5)(A) and (B) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff argues that the “sovereign State/Kingdom of Morocco is the direct

responsibility of His Majesty, King Mohamed V [sic]. . . [and] that such King [is] directly

responsible for any and all occurrences of each and every type that have occurred or may occur

within the Sovereign State/Kingdom.” Plaintiff further argues that “the provision for the health

and safety of subjects of the Kingdom and authorized visitors to the Kingdom of Morocco is not

discretionary” and that the King is “directly responsible” for the “inspection, testing and safe

installation of each and all Butane Gas Driven appliances in the Sovereignty” and for the failure

to implement a “safe building code.” In the amended complaint, plaintiff fails to set forth any

facts linking defendants directly to his injuries. Rather, he imputes responsibility to defendants

based on their alleged failure to establish safety codes and inspection procedures related to

installation of butane water heaters. Plaintiff argues that, by these omissions, defendants meet

the tortious activity exceptions to the FSIA.

As discussed above, the tortious activity exception to jurisdictional immunity is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), and applies in cases where money damages are sought against

a foreign state for personal injury occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or

omission of that foreign state. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that his injuries

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

occurred in Morocco, not the United States. Furthermore, he alleges that the injuries were

caused by the malfunction of a hot water tank in the home of a private citizen. Accordingly, this

exception to jurisdictional immunity does not apply.

Neither do subparts (A) and (B) to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5) apply in this case. 

Rather, subpart A is an exception to the exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), and

provides immunity for any claim based on the “exercise or performance or the failure to exercise

or perform a discretionary function.” Under this exception to the exception, discretionary

functions of foreign states are treated as policy decisions and courts are barred from reviewing

such decisions “through the medium of a tort action.” Joseph v. Office of Consulate General of

Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 1987). Likewise, subpart B provides that the exception to

immunity does not apply where a claim arises out of malicious prosecution, libel, slander, or the

like. Plaintiff does not explain how subpart B relates to his claims. It appears that plaintiff

discusses subpart A in order to preclude defendants from arguing that their acts or omissions in

this case were “discretionary” and as such, qualify them for immunity. In any event, both

subparts A and B of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5) provide defendants with additional bases for

immunity, and therefore provide no basis for jurisdiction. As explained above, plaintiff’s

references to the FSIA do not confer jurisdiction on this court, nor do any of the exceptions to

immunity he invokes apply to the defendants in this matter. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED, that the complaint be dismissed with

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Bergeron1102.amd

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 5 of 5