YONAS FIKRE V. FBI, No. 16-36072 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YONAS FIKRE, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 16-36072 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00899-BR v. MEMORANDUM* FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 9, 2018 Portland, Oregon Before: RAWLINSON, M. SMITH.,** and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Following Judge Garbis’s retirement, Judge Smith was drawn by lot to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Smith has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument. Fikre alleged that in June 2011, he was detained by the secret police in the United Arab Emirates and subjected to interrogation and torture for 106 days.1 This episode was instigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Fikre sued the government contending, among other things, that it illegally surveilled him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed this claim and Fikre timely appealed. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.2 Fikre’s fifth amended complaint pleaded that the “[FBI’s] actions were not authorized by a warrant satisfying the Fourth Amendment, were not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and were unreasonable.” These allegations are vague and conclusory and, in the absence of “further factual enhancement,” do not give rise to a “plausible claim for relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); see Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). And because Fikre “had several opportunities to amend [his] complaint and repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies,” the district court did not abuse its 1 On a motion to dismiss, we take all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010). As the parties are familiar with these allegations, we do not recount them here. 2 We resolve Fikre’s due process claims in a concurrently filed opinion. 2 discretion by dismissing his Fourth Amendment claim with prejudice. Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.