Akran v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2014
• Docket: 14-1070
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

14‐1070 Akran v. United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of October , two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: CHESTER J. STRAUB, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________

GODSON ODUBIYI AKRAN,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 14‐1070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant‐Appellee. ____________________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: JAVIER N. MALDONADO, Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado, P.C., San Antonio, TX.

FOR APPELLEE: ELLIOT M. SCHACHNER, Varuni Nelson, Margaret M. Kolbe, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. ____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Eric N. Vitaliano, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Appellant Godson Akran brought this suit pursuant to the Federal Tort

Claims Act. Akran alleged that the United States falsely imprisoned him by

arresting and detaining him during the pendency of removal proceedings.

Finding that the detention was legally privileged, the district court granted the

United States’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This appeal

followed.

We AFFIRM on the ground that Akran’s Complaint fails to adequately

allege a cause of action. Akran’s contention that immigration officials knew or

should have known that he was a United States citizen is conclusory and

2 implausible. We have considered Akran’s remaining arguments and find them

to be without merit.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk