Soudavar v. Bush ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21293
Summary Calendar
ABOLALA SOUDAVAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-343
--------------------
July 31, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Abolala Soudavar (“Soudavar”), appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint against George W. Bush, President of
the United States (“President Bush”) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Soudavar argues that
President Bush unjustly issued executive orders imposing trade
sanctions against Iran.
A dismissal for failure to state a claim will be upheld
“only if, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, it appears
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-21293
-2-
that no relief could be granted based on the plaintiff’s alleged
facts.” Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 240 (5th Cir.
1999). This court reviews legal determinations regarding the
subject matter jurisdiction of a district court de novo. United
States v. Alvarado, 201 F.3d 379, 381 (5th Cir. 2000).
The district court concluded, inter alia, that Soudavar’s
claim involved a nonjusticiable political question. Soudavar
fails to make a persuasive argument that his challenge to the
President’s foreign policy does not present a nonjusticiable
political question. See Dickson v. Ford, 521 F.2d 234, 236 (5th
Cir. 1975). The district court also determined that President
Bush was entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability.
See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982). As Soudavar
does not address this basis for the district court’s dismissal,
he has abandoned this issue on appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Furthermore, the district court did not have jurisdiction to
consider Soudavar’s complaint under the Treaty of Amity. See
Soudavar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 186 F.3d 671, 674-75 (5th
Cir. 1999).
For the foregoing reasons the district court’s decision is
AFFIRMED.