Summary
holding that current and former U.N. officials are immune under the General Convention and IOIA from employment discrimination and retaliation claims
Summary of this case from Osman v. AnnanOpinion
05 Civ. 8918 (DC).
December 22, 2005
CLEOPHUS A. D'CRUZ, Plaintiff Pro Se, Cranford, New Jersey.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
In this pro se employment case, plaintiff Cleophus A. D'Cruz sues more than twenty defendants for alleged violations of "Staff Regulations Rules" and the terms of "his contract," including "failure to promote, harassment, retaliation, suspension, [being] barred from [the] premises, [a] failure to honor certified retirement, [and a] withholding [of] salary, pension, [and] insurance[.]" (Compl. ¶ 8). For the following reasons, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's Claims Against Current or Former United Nations Officers and/or Employees
It appears that the majority of the named defendants in plaintiff's complaint are current or former officers and/or employees of the United Nations. (Attachs. to Compl. at 1). "[U]nder the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (`U.N. Convention'), Feb. 13, 1946, 21 U.S.T. 1418, T.I.A.S. 6900, acceded to by the United States in 1970, United Nations officials sued for acts performed in their official capacities are immune from suit." McGehee v. Albright, 210 F. Supp. 2d 210, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (citing U.N. Convention, art. 5, § 18(a), 21 U.S.T. at 1432 ("Officials of the United Nations shall . . . be immune from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity.") (alterations in original); Askir v. Boutros-Ghali, 933 F. Supp. 368, 371 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)).
In addition, under Section 7(b) of the International Organizations Immunities Act (the "IOIA"), Title I, 59 Stat. 671 (1945), codified at 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b), United Nations officers and employees are "immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as . . . officers . . . or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived" by the United Nations. IOIA, 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b); see also McGehee, 210 F. Supp. 2d at 218. IOIA immunity has been extended to former officers of the United Nations when the claims raised in a suit against them relate only to acts performed by them in their official capacity. See De Luca v. United Nations Org., 841 F. Supp. 531, 534-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
Plaintiff's claims against defendants he alleges are current or former United Nations officers and/or employees apparently arise from his employment at the United Nations and relate only to acts performed within the individual defendants' respective official capacities as United Nations officers and/or employees. See id. at 535 (discussing cases in which courts found United Nations officers and employees immune from plaintiffs' employment discrimination claims). Therefore, the individual defendants are immune from suit. Accordingly, as plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that immunity from suit has been waived, the claims against the named defendants are dismissed.
B. Plaintiff's Claims Against "The United Nations Organization" and "United Nations Insurance Services (UNIS)"
In addition, plaintiff asserts claims against "The United Nations Organization" and "United Nations Insurance Services (UNIS)," which appear to be entities and/or subdivisions of the United Nations. These claims are also dismissed. Under the U.N. Convention, the United Nations itself "and `its property and assets' enjoy immunity from `every form of legal process'" unless "`it has expressly waived its immunity.'" Id. at 533 (quoting U.N. Convention, art. II, sec. 2). Furthermore, the IOIA "cloaks the U.N. with similar immunity." Id. at 533 n. 1. The IOIA provides that the United Nations "receive[s] the same immunity as that `enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent such organizations may expressly waive their immunity.'" Id. (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b); citing Ex. Ord. No. 9698, 11 F.R. 1809 (Feb. 19, 1946)); see 22 U.S.C. § 288. Thus, as "The United Nations Organization" and "United Nations Insurance Services (UNIS)" both appear to be entities and/or subdivisions of the United Nations, and as plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that the United Nations has waived its immunity from suit, plaintiff's claims against these defendants are dismissed as they are immune from suit.
CONCLUSION
Although this Court would generally permit amendment of a fee-paid complaint to cure any defects before dismissing such a case sua sponte, there is no need to do so here as plaintiff presents no arguably meritorious issue. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) ("[The in forma pauperis statute] . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a `frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision"); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) ("[W]e hold that district courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee[.]"); see also Parris v. Kelly, No. 93 Civ. 7391 (RWS), 1993 WL 497979, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1993) (dismissing sua sponte a fee-paid complaint based on fantastic or delusional claims).
Here, plaintiff has paid the filing fee.
Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, without leave Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, without leave to amend.
SO ORDERED.