Submitted November 18, 2016
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 CV 3159 -
Charles R. Norgle, Judge.
POSNER and Kanne, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
Kashamu, a fugitive for nearly two decades and the alleged
leader of a heroin-importing conspiracy that inspired the hit
show "Orange is the New Black, " appears before us
for a third time not in person but through counsel because he
is unwilling to risk being present in the United States, and
in fact has never in his life been in the United States. See
"Man Who Inspired Orange is the New Black Elected
Senator in Nigeria" The Guardian, Apr. 16,
(visited Jan. 20, 2017).
a grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois had charged
him and thirteen others with conspiracy to import heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. Eleven coconspirators
pleaded guilty, and one other was convicted after trial. But
Kashamu, refusing to appear (which would have required his
presence in the United States), insisted that the authorities
were trying to pin crimes committed by his dead brother-who
he said bore a striking resemblance to him-on him.
present suit is Kashamu's latest attempt to avoid
answering the still-pending charges that the Justice
Department has brought against him. When he surfaced in
England six months after his indictment Justice Department
lawyers commenced what turned out to be a four-year legal
battle seeking his extradition to the United
States-unsuccessfully. Later Kashamu moved to dismiss the
American indictment on the ground that the doctrine of
collateral estoppel barred his prosecution by the United
States. We denied that motion, explaining that the English
magistrate's refusal to authorize his extradition to the
United States had been based simply on the Justice
Department's inability to convince the judge that the
person it was seeking to extradite was indeed Kashamu.
United States v. Kashamu, 656 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.
2011). Because the magistrate had not ruled on Kashamu's
guilt or innocence of the U.S. charges, the refusal to
extradite him did not preclude further efforts to prosecute
him. Id. at 688.
years later Kashamu again appeared before the court, this
time petitioning for a writ of mandamus to dismiss the
indictment on speedy-trial grounds. Again we turned him down,
this time on the ground that he had forfeited any
speedy-trial right by remaining a fugitive, and noting that
if "he wants to fight the charges, he has only to fly
from Lagos to Chicago." In re Kashamu, 769 F.3d
490, 494 (7th Cir. 2014).
than do that, Kashamu devised a new strategy. He filed suit
in the district court in Chicago in April 2015 - one month
after his election to the Nigerian Senate-asking the court to
"enjoin his abduction abroad by U.S. authorities."
He claimed to have been tipped off that U.S. authorities,
colluding with his political rivals, were planning to abduct
him in Nigeria and drag him to Chicago to stand trial before
he could be sworn into office as a Nigerian senator. He
relied on a provision of the Mansfield Amendment, 22 U.S.C.
§ 2291(c)(1), that states that "no officer or
employee of the United States may directly effect an arrest
in any foreign country as part of any foreign police action
with respect to narcotics control efforts."
after filing the suit, Kashamu amended the complaint to
allege that his fear of abduction had nearly come true:
agents of Nigeria's National Drug Law Enforcement Agency,
along with two white men who Kashamu reasons must have been
operatives of the United States Drug Enforcement
Administration, surrounded his Lagos residence and tried to
arrest him on an "invalid provisional warrant."
But, the complaint continues, he "refused to surrender,
" and so the agents "laid siege ... keeping him
prisoner in his own home for six days, until a Nigerian
federal court ordered them to cease their activities and
depart from the premises." He speculates that U.S.
agents directed and coordinated the entire affair, and that
U.S. authorities still are trying to extradite him. In the
absence of injunctive relief, he maintains, he is vulnerable
to "a very real threat of abduction by U.S.
district court dismissed Kashamu's complaint on the
ground that the Mansfield Amendment does not create a private
right of action. Although the statute forbids federal
employees to arrest a person in a foreign country on
narcotics charges, the Supreme Court has repeatedly construed
statutes similar to the Mansfield Amendment as directives to
federal agencies and their employees (i.e., "behave
yourselves, " or face disciplinary action) rather than
"as a conferral of the right to sue" the agencies
and their employees. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Exceptional
Child Center, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 1387 (2015); Alexander
v. Sandoval 532 U.S. 275 (2001); Thompson v.
Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (1981); California v. Sierra
Club, 451 U.S. 287 (1981).
suit further lacks merit because it confuses an attempt by
U.S. government agents to arrest him on a provisional warrant
(a first step toward possible extradition) in coordination
with local law enforcement, with an attempted abduction. The
Mansfield Amendment is explicit in not prohibiting
an employee of the United States, provided he has the
approval of the United States chief of mission, from
"being present when foreign officers are effecting an
arrest or from assisting foreign officers who are effecting
an arrest." 22 U.S.C. § 2291(c)(2). ...