Qian Ibrahim Zhao v. Unknown Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

411 F. App'x 336
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 3, 2010
DocketNo. 09-5425
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 411 F. App'x 336 (Qian Ibrahim Zhao v. Unknown Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Qian Ibrahim Zhao v. Unknown Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, 411 F. App'x 336 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 16, 2009 be affirmed. Appellant failed to state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security because he did not allege that the Secretary, through her “own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, -U.S.-,-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Appellant’s [337]*337claims under Bivens against the unknown CIA agent are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See D.C.Code § 12-301; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (“[I]t is the standard rule that accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.” (internal quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted)).

The district court judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a basis for disqualification. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). By failing to seek leave from the district court to amend his complaint after it was dismissed, appellant forfeited the right to seek leave to amend on appeal. See City of Harper Woods Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Olver, 589 F.3d 1292, 1304 (D.C.Cir.2009). Finally, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant appellant’s request for transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carr v. Sessions
District of Columbia, 2019
Richardson v. Sauls
319 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Richardson v. Sauls
District of Columbia, 2018
Debrew v. Atwood
244 F. Supp. 3d 123 (District of Columbia, 2017)
Richardson v. Yellen
167 F. Supp. 3d 105 (District of Columbia, 2016)
Hampton v. Comey
District of Columbia, 2016
Garcia v. Sebelius
867 F. Supp. 2d 125 (District of Columbia, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
411 F. App'x 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qian-ibrahim-zhao-v-unknown-agent-of-the-central-intelligence-agency-cadc-2010.