THERMIDOR v. GENERAL CONSULATE OF HAITI IN MIAMI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REGINAL THERMIDOR, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 25-02761 (UNA)
)
)
GENERAL CONSULATE OF HAITI 	)
IN MIAMI, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 	For the following reasons, the Court
grants the IFP motion and dismisses the case.
Plaintiff, a resident of Milford, Delaware, alleges that on November 30, 2007, “one of the
workers at the General Consulate of Haiti” in Miami, Florida, took his U.S. passport and “asked”
about his documents. A “couple of weeks” later, Plaintiff received a Haitian passport. Compl.,
ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff seeks damages and “would like to have the passport back and its status[.]”
Id. at 5.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). 	The
party asserting subject-matter jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such. Id. The Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) “holds foreign states and their instrumentalities immune from
the jurisdiction of federal and state courts,” Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601, 1605
Case 1:25-cv-02761-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 2

2
(2020), “unless one of the exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a) applies,” Roeder v. Islamic
Republic of 	Iran, 646 F.3d 56, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (cleaned up), or an existing international
agreement provides otherwise, Peterson v. Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 416 F.3d 83, 86 (D.C.
Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a), 1604). Exceptions under the FSIA include claims based
on (1) commercial activities with a specified nexus to the United States, (2) torts that have caused
domestic personal injury or property damage, and (3) certain expropriations of property rights.
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., 145 S. Ct. 1572, 1578 (2025) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1605(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)).
Plaintiff’s tenuous claims do not establish an exception under the FSIA to overcome Haiti’s
immunity from suit. Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
____________________________
Dated: November 12, 2025 	TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
Case 1:25-cv-02761-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 2