UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JACK STONE, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 19-3273 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 72, 73, 78, 79, 81, : 82 : U.S. EMBASSY TOKYO, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION In this case, Plaintiff Jack Stone (“Stone”), proceeding pro se, claims that the United States Embassy in Tokyo and the Department of State (“Defendants”) have unlawfully refused to issue citizenship and immigration documents that he requested for his family. This case was transferred from the District of Hawaii, and Plaintiff has now made additional filings in this court: a request for an order of return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; motions for orders to compel the Department of State to grant U.S. citizenship to his children and issue his wife’s visa; and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for an incident involving a Department of State official. Construing these filings as motions to amend the complaint, the Court will grant them in part and deny them in part for the reasons explained below. II. BACKGROUND 1 Plaintiff, a United States citizen currently residing in Japan, filed suit against Defendants in the District of Hawaii, seeking an order to compel the issuance of Plaintiff’s first-born child’s passport and unspecified damages. Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. (“Pl.’s SAC”) 1, 9, ECF No. 39. In Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this case, Plaintiff pled that his wife left the U.S. for Japan with Plaintiff’s child without Plaintiff’s consent. Pl.’s SAC ¶ 6. Plaintiff later claimed that his wife left the U.S. out of fear that she would be deported because Defendants had not issued her visa, despite Plaintiff submitting an I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on behalf of his wife more than a year prior. See Pl.’s Aff. of Wife’s Visa Appl. (“Pl.’s Aff.”) 5, 7, ECF No. 102. The District Court for the District of Hawaii transferred this case to this District “so that substantive issues can be addressed on their merits.” Order Den. Pl.’s Emergency Mot. and Transferring Action (“Transfer Order”) 17, ECF No. 64. Prior to transferring this case, however, the District of Hawaii Court made two preliminary determinations. First, Plaintiff’s vague claim for unspecified damages was insufficient to find waiver of Defendants’ sovereign immunity for the claim. See id. at 9. Second, the Administrative Procedure Act applied to Plaintiff’s claim for 1 This background is drawn from the facts Plaintiff (1) pled in the Second Amended Complaint and (2) alleged in support of his subsequent filings. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff [in a proposed amendment] may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claims on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals