Court Opinion

ID: 2964127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:58.774435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:52.212030
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 23, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1526 

                                   ASTOR D. CHANCE,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                       TAIWAN,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1573
        No. 95-1629

                                   ASTOR D. CHANCE,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________
                                 ____________________

            Astor D. Chance on brief pro se.
            _______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.     We   affirm  the  judgments   in  these
                 ___________

            consolidated appeals substantially for the reasons recited by

            the district court.  We add only the following comments. 

                 1.  The Government of Taiwan  is amenable to suit in the

            United  States only  in  accordance  with  the terms  of  the

            Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C.   

            1602-11.   See,  e.g.,  Millen Indus.,  Inc. v.  Coordination
                       ___   ____   ____________________     ____________

            Council  for North American Affairs,  855 F.2d 879, 883 (D.C.
            ___________________________________

            Cir.  1988)  ("all  laws,  including  the  FSIA,  [that  are]

            applicable to  nations also apply to  Taiwan"); see generally
                                                            _____________

            Argentine Republic  v. Amerada Hess Shipping  Corp., 488 U.S.
            __________________     ____________________________

            428,  443 (1989) (FSIA "provides the sole basis for obtaining

            jurisdiction  over a  foreign  state in  the  courts of  this

            country").  Plaintiff is mistaken in arguing that the  FSIA's

            applicability  to Taiwan  is  affected by     4(b)(7) of  the

            Taiwan Relations Act, 22  U.S.C.   3303(b)(7), which provides

            simply that the  capacity of Taiwan "to  sue and be  sued" in

            United  States  courts  is  not altered  "by  the  absence of

            diplomatic relations or recognition."  His further suggestion

            that Taiwan's amenability to suit is  affected by the Torture

            Victim Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat.

            73  (set  forth  in note  following  28  U.S.C.    1350),  is

            likewise misplaced. 

                 2.    For the  reasons  enumerated  in Saudi  Arabia  v.
                                                        _____________

            Nelson, 507  U.S. 349  (1993), plaintiff's attempt  to invoke
            ______

            the  "commercial  activity"  exception  to  the  FSIA  proves

                                         -2-

            unavailing.  In particular, because  the governmental conduct

            of which  he complains  is "peculiarly sovereign  in nature,"

            id. at 361,  his action cannot be regarded as  one "based ...
            ___

            upon an act  outside the  territory of the  United States  in

            connection with  a commercial  activity of the  foreign state

            elsewhere ...."  28 U.S.C.   1605(a)(2).  

                 3.   Finally, we reject the  procedural objection voiced

            by  plaintiff in  Nos.  95-1573 &  95-1629.   Inasmuch  as  a

            frivolous complaint can properly be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.

               1915(d) on  a  sua sponte  basis,  see, e.g.,  Neitzke  v.
                              __________          ___  ____   _______

            Williams,  490 U.S. 319, 324,  330 (1989), the  court did not
            ________

            err in dismissing  these actions in advance  of its indicated

            twenty-day deadline.  Plaintiff, we note, has made no  effort

            to  buttress  his substantive  arguments  in  this regard  on

            appeal.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-