The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge George M. Marovich
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ayodele Fayoade ("Fayoade") filed pro se a complaint asserting violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 ("Vienna Convention"). Defendants James Spratte ("Spratte") and John Nee ("Nee") have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Dixon Correctional Center, is a citizen of Nigeria. He came to the United States as a visitor in 1982. Plaintiff became a permanent resident on July 26, 1985. The brush with the law that is the basis of this suit occurred in 1993.
On November 24, 1993, plaintiff was driving on Grand Avenue in Chicago. Defendants Spratte and Nee, both detectives with the Chicago Police Department, pulled over the car plaintiff was driving. Defendants suspected that plaintiff possessed narcotics. Defendants searched plaintiff's car (allegedly without permission--although that is irrelevant to plaintiff's claim), and they recovered narcotics.
Without informing plaintiff of his rights under the Vienna Convention, Spratte and Nee arrested plaintiff and took him to a police station. At no time did Spratte or Nee inform plaintiff of his rights under the Vienna Convention.
At the police station, plaintiff was put into an interrogation room where he was interrogated by a different police officer, Lieutenant Phillip Crane ("Crane") and an unnamed officer. Neither Crane nor the unnamed officer (neither of whom are defendants at this point) informed plaintiff of his rights under the Vienna Convention.
Ultimately, plaintiff was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and remains incarcerated.
II. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss
The Court may dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if the plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. McCullah v. Gadert, 344 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2003). A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, but mere conclusions and a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" will not suffice. Twombley, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-1965. A complaint must include enough factual allegations to "raise a right to relief above a speculative level." Twombley, 127 S.Ct. at 1965.
In his complaint, Fayoade alleges that defendants Spratte and Nee violated his rights under the Vienna Convention when they failed to inform him of those rights.
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention provides in relevant part:
1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to ...