Chance v. United States, 1st Cir. (1996)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsChance v. United States, 1st Cir. (1996)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
United
The Government of Taiwan
States only
in
is amenable to suit in the
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.
the
1988)
("all
applicable to
including
nations also apply to
Argentine Republic
__________________
428,
laws,
FSIA,
[that
are]
Taiwan"); see generally
_____________
v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S.
____________________________
443 (1989) (FSIA "provides the sole basis for obtaining
jurisdiction
country").
over a
foreign
state in
the
courts of
Plaintiff is mistaken in arguing that the
applicability
to Taiwan
is
affected by
this
FSIA's
4(b)(7) of
the
Taiwan Relations Act, 22
simply that the
United
States
U.S.C.
3303(b)(7), which provides
capacity of Taiwan "to
courts
is
not altered
sue and be
"by
the
sued" in
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
in Saudi Arabia
_____________
v.
likewise misplaced.
2.
Nelson, 507
______
the
For the
reasons
U.S. 349
"commercial
enumerated
(1993), plaintiff's attempt
activity"
exception
-2-
to
the
to invoke
FSIA
proves
unavailing.
of which
In particular, because
he complains
the governmental conduct
is "peculiarly sovereign
id. at 361,
___
his action cannot be regarded as
upon an act
outside the
territory of the
connection with
a commercial
elsewhere ...."
28 U.S.C.
3.
in nature,"
one "based ...
United States
activity of the
in
foreign state
1605(a)(2).
Finally, we reject the
procedural objection voiced
by
plaintiff in
Nos.
95-1573 &
95-1629.
Inasmuch
as
frivolous complaint can properly be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
1915(d) on
Williams,
________
sua sponte
__________
490 U.S. 319, 324,
err in dismissing
buttress
appeal.
Affirmed.
_________
see, e.g.,
___ ____
330 (1989), the
these actions in advance
twenty-day deadline.
to
basis,
Neitzke
_______
court did not
of its indicated
Plaintiff, we note, has made no
his substantive
arguments
in
v.
effort
this regard
on
-3-
