Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00037/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark C. Bergeron
Plaintiff
King Mohamed V
Defendant
The Kingdom of Morocco
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK C. BERGERON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING MOHAMED V, and THE 

KINGDOM OF MOROCCO,

Defendants.

CIV S-06-037 GEB PAN PS

ORDER 

-o0oOn January 6, 2006, plaintiff filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and

lodged a proposed complaint asserting this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.

Plaintiff’s affidavit is incomplete. He states his only

source of income is federal disability compensation totaling

$1028.00 per month and that he makes monthly child support

Case 2:06-cv-00037-GEB-PAN Document 3 Filed 01/23/06 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

2

payments of $790.00. Plaintiff states his only asset is a 1994

Chevy Blazer. The confusion lies in plaintiff’s affirmative

answer to the question, “Do you have any cash or checking or

savings accounts?” and his explanation the total amount is

“55.22.00.” 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied. Plaintiff may file, within 20 days of

service of this order, an amended in forma pauperis application

that includes the amount of money he holds in cash and in

checking and savings accounts.

Additionally, for the reasons set forth below,

plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff may also file, within 20 days of service

of this order, an amended complaint establishing this court’s

jurisdiction.

A federal court must dismiss the complaint of a plaintiff

proceeding, or seeking to proceed, in forma pauperis if at any

time the court determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (iii). 

The complaint alleges plaintiff was “seriously injured in

a private residence in the village of Mehedia . . . in the

Sovereign State/Kingdom of Morocco as the result of faulty

installation of a Butane Gas driven Hot Water Heater;” and that

“[t]he injuries sustained are the direct responsibility of the

Case 2:06-cv-00037-GEB-PAN Document 3 Filed 01/23/06 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

King of Morocco” and the Kingdom of Morocco due to their

“negligence” in failing to promulgate a pertinent building code

and their failure to inspect, test, and monitor the safe

installation “of each and all Butane Gas Driven appliances in the

Sovereignty.” Plaintiff’s injuries included asphyxiation

rendering him unconscious and causing brain damage, memory loss

and inability to perform more than elementary mathematical

calculations; plaintiff also suffered first, second and third

degree burns to his left thigh and left hand and forearm; his

hand became infected and was amputated within a week after

plaintiff sustained his injuries.

Plaintiff states he is a master electrician licensed in

California but is now permanently disabled from pursuing his

profession or pursuing other gainful employment. Plaintiff seeks

compensatory and punitive damages totaling $48,552,500.00.

The complaint rests jurisdiction on “28 U.S.C. § 1331 et

seq.,” presumably 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship),

and statutory exceptions to the general rule that foreign states

are immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. federal and state

courts, as set forth in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.

Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), which

provides that a foreign state shall not be immune from the

jurisdiction of U.S. courts in any case “in which money damages

are sought against a foreign state for personal injury . . .

occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or

Case 2:06-cv-00037-GEB-PAN Document 3 Filed 01/23/06 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

omission of that foreign state or any official or employee of

that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or

employment. . .” This statute is limited to injuries occurring

within the United States and does not, therefore, confer

jurisdiction over defendant. 

Nor is plaintiff’s passing reference to 28 U.S.C. §

1605(a)(2) helpful, as that statute provides an exception to the

jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state only for commercial

activities. 

Plaintiff also appears to rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1),

which permits U.S. courts to exercise jurisdiction over any

foreign state that “has waived its immunity either explicitly or

by implication.” Plaintiff suggests that the stamping of his

U.S. passport by Moroccan officials upon plaintiff’s entry into

that country bound Morocco to provide the protections requested

thereon, viz., “The Secretary of State of the United States of

America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the

citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass

without delay or hindrance and in case of need give all lawful

aide and protection.” Plaintiff argues “[t]he provision for the

health and safety of . . . authorized visitors to the Kingdom of

Morocco is not discretionary but obligatory,” and alleges the

Moroccan government failed adequately to come to plaintiff’s aid.

The court has found no authority to support plaintiff’s unusual

interpretation of this statute. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00037-GEB-PAN Document 3 Filed 01/23/06 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

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff may 

file, within 20 days of service of this order, an amended

complaint that establishes this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. Failure to file an amended complaint, or to

demonstrate this court’s subject matter jurisdiction in an

amended complaint, will result in a recommendation this action be

dismissed.

So ordered.

Dated: January 23, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00037-GEB-PAN Document 3 Filed 01/23/06 Page 5 of 5