T h e H on or abl e Ja mes S. G wi n of t h e U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C ou r t f or t h e N or t h er n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by 1/ d esi gnat i o n.

D o e ass ert s cl ai m s agai nst t he Se cret ary of t he D ep art m ent of H o m el and S ecuri t y , the D i rect o r of t he FB I, t he 2/ C o m m issio n e r o f C u sto m s a n d B o rd e r P ro te c tio n , an d the A ssista n t S e c re ta ry o f Im m igr a tio n a n d C u sto m s E n fo rc e m e n t, in t h e ir o ff

ic ia l c a p a c iti e s o n ly. T h e se c la im s fun c tio n a s c la im s a g a ins t t h e U n ited S ta te s. See Kent uck y v . G r aham , 473 U
. S. 159, 165- 66 ( 1985)
. D oe al s o as s er t s cl ai ms aga i ns t an un kn own n umber of un kn own ( and u ns er ved) U ni t ed St at es of f i ci al s i n bot h t h ei r of

f i ci al a n d pe r s on al c apa ci t i es . ( D oe h ad as s er t ed cl ai ms a g ai n s t f orme r S ecr et ar y of D e fen se D o n a ld R u m sfe ld in h is p e rs o n a l ca p a c ity, b u t th e se c la im s h a v e s inc e b e e n d ism isse d
. See [D o c s. 56 & 7 6 -1 ].)

D oe ha d as s er t ed a c l aim fo r re t ur n of proper t y s ei zed by t he U ni t ed St at es . T he U ni t ed St at es ha s s i nce 3/ re tur n e d D o e ’s p ro p e rty, a n d D o e m o v e s to d ism iss this c la im
. See [D o c . 75 ]. T h e C o u rt GR A N TS D o e’ s m o t i o n. -1 - UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT C OU RT D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - : J OHN DO E, : : CASE NO. 1:08-CV-1902 Plaintiff, : : v. : OPI NI ON & ORDER : [R esolvingDoc. Nos. 68 , 75 ] DONALD RUMSFELD, e t al

. , : : De fe nd ants
. : :

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - J AMES S. GW I

N, UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE: 1/ Plaintiff J ohn Doe filed this lawsuit ag ainst the Unit ed S tates and some of its high- and lowrank i ngofficia ls (collec tively , “the United States” or “the g overnme nt”), a lleg ing, a mong othe r 2/ thi ng s, that th e Un ite d St ate s h a s “ de nie d a nd un fa ir ly burd e ne d [hi m] inthe e xer c ise of his ri ght t o international tra

vel.” [Doc. 65 , ¶ 298]
. In particula r, Doe alleg es that whenever he “r eturns to the 3/ Un ite d St ate s f

ro m tr ave lin gint e rn atio na lly ,” Cus tom s a g e nts de ta in, se arc h, and int e rr og ate him , sometimes for “a s long a s nine hours.” [Doc. 65 , ¶ 1 2 5 ]
. F o r th i s r e a s o n , D o e s u s p e c t s ( c o r r e c t l y,Case No. 1:08-CV- 1902

G w i n , J.

-2 - it seems) that he “has been put on a terrorist watch list , or the e quivalent there of.” Id. ¶ 124. And he re quests “an injunction to pre vent furthe r infring ement of his liberties.” Id. ¶ 304. The United States moves to dismiss Doe’s right-to-trave l claim, arguing that Doe ha s failed to ide ntify any waiver

of the g overnme nt’s sovere ign immunity
. See[Doc. 68-1 , at 7-9]. Moreover , the United States say s, if Doe is trying to invoke the soverei gn -i mmunity waiver found in the Administrative Procedure Act (“the APA” or “the Act”) , see 5 U.S.C. § 702 , h e ha s in su ff ic ie ntl y pleade d the “f

inal ag ency

action” ne eded to state a cla im under the Ac t, see id. § 704
. See[Doc. 68- 1 , at 10-13]. Doe opposes the g overnme nt’s motion. See[Doc. 72 ]
. Be cause Doe a dmits he brought this claim under the APA, see id. at 13-15, a nd beca use Doe h a s f a i l e d t o p l e a d “ f i n a l a g e n c y a c t i o n , ” th e C o urtr e l u c t ant l y G RANT S the g overnme nt’s motion. I
. This O rder

resolves one small part of what might have been a much larg er c ase. In a prior opinion, see[Doc. 56 ], th e Court de ta ile d D oe ’s oth e r a lle g atio ns a g a ins t th e g ov e rnme nt. Th e same is not necessa

ry here . It’s sufficie nt to say that Doe—a United States citizen and Army veter an—has alleg ed dang erous mistreatment by his own g overnme nt, beg inning with a se cre t, torture-f illed, and sti ll- un e xpl a ine d n ine -m onth- lon gde te nti on in a n o ve rs e a s mi lit ary

priso n. (T o th e e xtent it

matte rs , th e go v ernm en tre l ea s edDo e w i th o utch ar gi n g h i mwi th , o r e v enac cu s i n g h i m o f, any wr o n gd o i n g. [Doc. 65 , ¶ 129].) Doe, “who l oves hi s country and its ideals,” id. ¶ 129, might have a ccepted an a pology from our g overnme nt, had it ever of fer ed one. B ut it didn’t. Instead, it brande d Doe suspicious, adde d him to “ a te rr orist watc h lis t,” and no w ha ra sse s h im at a ir

po rt s. Un de rs tand a

bly , D oe wa

nts thi s to stop.Case No. 1:08-CV- 1902

G w i n , J.

4/h ttp :// w w w .d h s.g o v /d h s-trip -3 - Ne ve rt he le ss, Do e c an’ t su e fo r r e mov a l f ro m th e g ov e rnme nt’ s b la c kli st— no t ye t at le a st. The APA g ener ally

limit s this C ourt’s re v i ew of “[a]ge ncy action” to only

“fina l ag ency

action,” 5 U.S.C. § 704 , that is, an ac tion both “mark[ing] the consummation of the ag ency ’s dec isionmaking proce ss” and e ither dete rmining “ rights or obligations” or g ener ating“leg al conse quence s.” Be nn e tt v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (interna l quotation marks omitted). And Doe alleg es only that

“ [e]a c h tim e [he ] i s de ta ine d, he pe tit ion s th e Cus tom s o ff ic e rs to r e mov e him

fr om t he watc hli st, but eac h s u ch reque st is invariably denied.” [Doc. 65 , ¶ 127]. Those denials—comingfrom “Customs officer s [who] meet [Doe] as he disembarks from the plane ,” id. ¶ 125—ar e har dly the

“ c on summatio n” of

Cus tom s’ s d e c isi onmakin gpr oc e ss ; the y ’r e fr ont- lin e ob e die nc e by tho se without decisionmakingauthority . With nothing e lse, Doe’ s complaint fails to plead final ag ency action and, a ccordingly , fails to state a c laim under the A PA. II. F or the se re a so ns , a

nd in s pit e of

Do e ’s a pp a lli ng(a

nd , c and idl y , e mba

rr a ssi ng ) a lle g atio ns , theCourt G RANT S the gover nment’s m otion. I f he’ s not alrea dy done so, Doe might conside r the Depa rtment of Homeland Security ’s Trave ler Redr ess Inquiry Program, through which, for better 4/ or worse, he c an g et “f

inal ag ency

action.” Se eals o Latif

v. Holder , 686 F.3d 1122 ( 9th Cir. 2012)
. I T I S SO ORDERED.
Dated: Septembe r 7, 2012 s/ James S. Gwin J A M E S S
. G W IN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE