Court Opinion

ID: 9402718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 17:02:07.996237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.065958
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                       ____________
No. 22-7170                                                  September Term, 2022
                                                                         1:22-cv-03162-UNA
                                                        Filed On: June 16, 2023

Denys Namystiuk,

              Appellant

       v.

Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin,
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
Russian Federation,

              Appellees

             ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:        Millett and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
                      Judge

                                      JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 17, 2022, order
be affirmed. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), “if it applies, is the ‘sole
basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court.’” Samantar v.
Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 314 (2010) (quoting Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess
Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439 (1989)); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a), 1604; see
also Samantar, 560 U.S. at 324–25 (recognizing that some actions against foreign
officials, which are not covered by the plain text of the FSIA, should nevertheless be
dismissed pursuant to the FSIA because they “should be treated as actions against the
foreign state itself, as the state is the real party in interest”). The district court properly
dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to allege facts
that could support the inference that any of the exceptions to sovereign immunity
enumerated in the FSIA applies. See Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127, 141
(D.C. Cir. 2016).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-7170                                                September Term, 2022

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.
41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2