Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02324/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02324-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18cv2324-JAH (BLM)

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIAN CAESAR BLANCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALKERS' HOSTEL; NATIONAL 

TAIWAN UNIVERSITY; NATIONAL 

IMMIGRATION AGENCY; NATIONAL 

HEALTH INSURANCE 

ADMINISTRATION; POLICE; VICKY 

WANG 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2324-JAH (BLM)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint along with a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. All parties instituting any civil action, suit or 

proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas 

corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court may authorize the 

commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, 

including a statement of all his or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to pay the 

fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 

any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a 

Case 3:18-cv-02324-JAH-BLM Document 3 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2324-JAH (BLM)

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

27

28

mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, 

malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary 

relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, Section 1915(e)(2) provides the court 

reviewing any complaint filed by a person proceeding in forma pauperis with the authority 

and obligation to make and rule on its own motion to dismiss the complaint prior to service, 

or at any time it becomes clear that the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks 

monetary relief from immune defendants. See Calhoun, 254 F.3d at 845. “[I]mmunity is 

an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction and, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, ‘if the court determines at any time that it lacks subject [matter] jurisdiction, 

the court must dismiss the action.’)(emphasis in original).” Rishikof v. Mortada, 70 F. 

Supp. 3d 8, 17, n. 4 (D.D.C. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff asserts various claims of extortion, blackmail, discrimination, harassment,

and wrongful termination against Walkers’ Hostel, a specialty lodging establishment in the 

Republic of China (Taiwan), National Taiwan University, three national statutory agencies 

and two Taiwanese nationals, (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Plaintiff brings 

these claims based on conduct alleged to have occurred in the Republic of China (Taiwan) 

and seeks compensatory and general damages in the amount of 900,000 dollars. Although 

Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction based upon diversity, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 

international law. 

International law limits the extraterritorial jurisdiction a district court may exercise.

United States v. Campbell, 798 F. Supp. 2d 293, 308 (D.D.C. 2011); see also United States 

v. Vasquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d 833, 840 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing the five principles 

whereby the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction may be appropriate). “Courts generally 

look to international law principles to ensure that an extraterritorial application of United 

States laws is “reasonable.” United States v. Felix-Gutierrez, 940 F.2d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir. 

1991). The allegations put forth by Plaintiff involve acts performed outside the United 

States. These acts produced no detrimental effects within the United States, do not impinge 

Case 3:18-cv-02324-JAH-BLM Document 3 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2324-JAH (BLM)

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

27

28

on the territorial integrity, security, or political independence of the United States, nor were 

they committed by American nationals. See Vasquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d at 840. Where 

foreign nationals are involved the United States lacks jurisdiction over conduct performed 

outside its territory absent some nexus between the United States and the conduct. See 

United States v. Crews, 605 F. Supp. 730, 734 (S.D. Fla. 1985), aff’d sub nom. United 

States v. McGill, 800 F.2d 265 (11th Cir. 1986).

Moreover, Plaintiff lists as Defendants three national agencies, the National Police 

Agency and the National Immigration Agency within the Ministry of Interior and the 

National Health Insurance Administration under the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the 

Republic of China (Taiwan). The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or 

Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq “provides that a ‘foreign state shall be immune from 

the jurisdiction’ of both federal and state courts except as provided in the Act.” Samantar 

v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 309 (2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1604. “A foreign state...includes a 

political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” 

28 U.S.C § 1603. The Act is the “sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state 

in federal court.” Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439 

(1989). The national agency Defendants are therefore immune from jurisdiction unless an 

enumerated exception applies. See §§ 1605 -1607 (enumerating exceptions). Plaintiff has 

failed to plead an applicable exception. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

with prejudice for want of jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

is DENIED as MOOT. 

DATED: October 31, 2018

 

____________________________________

HON.JOHN A. HOUSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-02324-JAH-BLM Document 3 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3