Yakaba v. United States Department of Commerce

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0198
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MINKO LUSAKIO YAKABA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0198 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF COMMERCE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and DISMISSES the

complaint.

Plaintiff describes himself as “a sovereign representative of the United American Tribal

Embassy International and the Cutahaugula Tribal Nation.” Compl. at 1. His complaint begins

with allegations pertaining to his arrest in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 6, 2022, his

subsequent detention and referral for a psychiatric evaluation. See id. at 2-3. The pleading ends

with legal claims purportedly asserted under the International Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (“ICCPR”), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(“UNDRIP”), and the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). See id. at 2, 4-6. Among other relief,

Plaintiff demands an award of “$50 million for identity misclassification.” id. at 6, arising from

the failure of the United States Department of Commerce and Census Bureau to “update . . .

records to reflect Plaintiff’s tribal identity,” id. at 3.

1 There is no private right of action under CERD, ICCPR, or UNDRIP. See Al-Din Bey v.

Circle K., No. 2:23-cv-05521, 2024 WL 2160438, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr. 24, 2024) (citations

omitted) (“With respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

this declaration is not a legally binding instrument under international law and does not create a

private right of action.”), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Bey v. Circle K., No.

2:23-cv-521, 2024 WL 2155217 (D.S.C. May 14, 2024); Cook v. Bureau of Consular Affairs,

No. 23-cv-3666, 2024 WL 95201, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2024) (dismissing claims under ICCPR

and CERD).

Plaintiff is no more successful in bringing suit under the ATS. It “is a purely

jurisdictional statute and does not itself create a private cause of action,” Ofisi v. BNP Paribas,

S.A., 77 F.4th 667, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2023), and is not a valid basis for suing the United States, see

El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836, 858 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc)

(Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“The Alien Tort Statute has never been held to cover suits against

the United States or United States Government officials.”); Angeni v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce,

No. 24-cv-2006, 2024 WL 4582972, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2024) (dismissing claim against

Census Bureau for misclassifying Plaintiff as “Black” rather than “American Aborigine” because

ATS “cannot be used to sue the United States for damages”).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: April 29, 2025 /s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

2 3