Opinion ID: 1195424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts and Procedural History of the Instant Case

Text: The following facts are taken from the pro se complaint filed in the District Court by plaintiff-appellant Ricardo A. De Los Santos Mora (plaintiff). We accept these facts as true for the purposes of this appeal and draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. See, e.g., McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 505 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir.2007). Plaintiff is a currently incarcerated native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who entered the United States in 1991. In 1992, he was arrested in Queens, New York, and charged with attempted robbery in violation of New York State law. According to plaintiff's allegations, he did not speak English at the time of his arrest, and the arresting officers did not speak Spanish. He was interrogated without an interpreter present, although he told police in Spanish that he did not understand and wanted to speak with somebody in Spanish. After appearing before a judge, plaintiff was appointed counsel who did not speak Spanish. Plaintiff was then, according to his allegations, coerced into taking a plea without the benefit of an interpreter. He was sentenced to six months' incarceration and five years' probation. The arresting officers and the prosecutor knew that plaintiff was a citizen of the Dominican Republic but never advised him that he could request legal assistance from the Dominican consulate. On December 5, 2005, plaintiff, who is represented by counsel on appeal, filed a pro se complaint under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). [10] Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendants-appellees Queens County District Attorney and New York City Police Department (jointly, defendants) [11] violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by failing to inform him that he could contact the Dominican consulate. It also claims that [t]he outcome of Plaintiff['s] case would have been different if [he] would [have] known of his Vienna Convention rights, and that serious error by the arresting officers and District Attorney caused [ sic ] [him] his freedom. As relief, plaintiff requested $1 million. [12] Shortly after filing his complaint, plaintiff requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis. In a memorandum and order entered on December 30, 2005, the District Court granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the District Court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, concluding that [t]he Vienna Convention was meant to protect the rights of states to care for their nationals traveling abroad, not to protect the rights of individuals. [13] Final judgment was also entered on December 30, 2005. Plaintiff timely appealed. On appeal, plaintiff, now represented by counsel, argues that Article 36 confers upon him individual rights that he may enforce, not only under the ATS, but also under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [14] and pursuant to an implied private right of action created by the Vienna Convention itself.