Report No. 263 (2020) IACHR. Petition No. 888-11 (Estados Unidos de America)

• Report Number: 263
• Petition Number: 888-11
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Respondent State: United States
• Alleged Victim: Mustafa Ozsusamlar

REPORT No. 263/20

PETITION 888-11

REPORT ON INADMISSIBILITY

MUSTAFA OZSUSAMLAR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 279

23 September 2020

Original: English

Approved electronically by the Commission on September 23, 2020.

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 263/20. Petition 888-11. I.. Mustafa Ozsusamlar.

United S.s of America. September 23, 2020.

www.cidh.org

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner	Mustafa Ozsusamlar
Alleged victim	Mustafa Ozsusamlar
Respondent S.	United S.s of America
Rights invoked	None specified

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR

Filing of the petition	J. 29, 2011
Additional information received during initial review	September 30, 2011
N. of the petition	December 17, 2015
S.’s first response	M. 28, 2017
Additional observations from the petitioner	November 10 and 27, 2017

III. COMPETENCE

Ratione personae:	Yes
Ratione loci:	Yes
Ratione temporis:	Yes
Ratione materiae:	Yes, American D. (ratification of the OAS Charter on J. 19, 1951)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and international res judicata	No
Rights declared admissible	N/A
Exhaustion or exception to the exhaustion of remedies	Yes, in terms of Section VI
Timeliness of the petition	Yes, in terms of Section VI

V. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED FACTS

1. Mustafa Ozsusamlar, the petitioner and alleged victim, claims that his human rights were violated by the United S.s upon his arrest and further trial, conviction and detention. The alleged victim was born in T., and has been a naturalized American citizen since 1998. He was arrested on December 5, 2001 in Washington D.C. and charged with conspiracy to bribe a public official, bribery of a public official; conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with identification documents, fraud in connection with identification documents; conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens, and transportation of undocumented aliens. He was tried and convicted before a jury and found guilty on May 14, 2004. On February 1, 2007, he was sentenced to 235 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The petitioner alleges unlawful arrest and search, discriminatory treatment, violations of his due process guarantees, lack of access to health services and violations to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

2. The petitioner claims that he was unlawfully arrested while he was in a rented van that was legally parked on a public street. He claims that the arresting officer approached and interrogated him because of his “perceived race” as a “middle easterner”, and subsequently arrested him because he believed he was a M.. The petitioner alleges that he and his van were searched without a warrant. He states that he was taken to U.S. Immigration headquarters after his arrest and questioned without being informed of his M. rights.¹ The petitioner additionally alleges irregularities at his trial and subsequent sentencing. He claims that the federal judge who sentenced him on February 1, 2007 conspired with United S.s prosecutors and the petitioner’s own defense counsel to deny him a fair trial. He further alleges that his defense counsel intentionally failed to adequately cross examine key witnesses and raise “Speedy Trial Act” objections, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.² F., the petitioner states that his sentencing was based on “aggravating factors” that were never proven by the United S.s.

3. The petitioner appealed his conviction to the United S.s Court of Appeals for the S. Circuit on May 22, 2008, focusing on three due process claims arising from his arrest³ and argued that all evidence gained as a result of his arrest should have been ruled inadmissible at trial. On May 22, 2008, the Court of Appeals ruled that the arresting officer’s conduct did not violate the petitioner’s due process constitutional rights, finding that the initial contact between the petitioner and the arresting officer was consensual, and that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the petitioner⁴.

5. The petitioner first raised claims related to his alleged due process violations in a habeas corpus petition filed in the U.S. District Court for the S.D.N.Y. on April 7, 2009, in which he alleged that: a) his counsel provided ineffective assistance; b) his sentence was unreasonable; c) his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated; d) and his M. rights were violated. The U.S. District Court for the S.D.N.Y. denied the petition on all four grounds on January 7, 2010, finding that the petitioner received effective counsel, that the time between his arrest and trial did not violate the “Speedy Trial Act”, that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation of his due process rights and that the record supported the sentence, including that the officers would have made any statement before having his M. rights read to him.⁵ The petitioner sought a certificate of appealability from the S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on J. 15, 2010. T. months after the appellate court’s denial, on September 8, 2010, the petitioner filed a new motion with the U.S. District Court for the S.D.N.Y., to amend his original habeas corpus petition with two new claims. B. of these claims alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.⁶ On August 28, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the S.D.N.Y. ruled that this new motion was untimely, and that he raised new claims that did not “relate back” to his initial habeas corpus petition.

6. On December 10, 2013, the petitioner filed a “Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability” against the sentencing judge before the Judicial Council of the S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint alleged gross misconduct by the judge⁷. The Chief Judge for the S. Circuit Court of Appeals conducted an investigation, including an exhaustive review of the trial transcript, and dismissed all allegations as meritless.

7. Between 2005 and 2014, the petitioner filed several additional federal lawsuits against three of his criminal defense attorneys (alleging conspiring with the prosecution), two Assistant United S.s Attorneys (alleging facilitating perjury in witnesses, presenting false evidence, and conspiring to deprive petitioner of a fair trial), and an undercover FBI agent (alleging perjury). All of these lawsuits were considered and dismissed by various courts.⁸ N., all of these lawsuits were filed in forma pauperis, which allows litigants who have limited funds to file federal lawsuits for free, without having to pay filing fees. On M. 12, 2014, the petitioner’s status and ability to file in forma pauperis was revoked by the United S.s District Court for the S.D.N.Y., after he was found to have filed his fifth duplicative and meritless lawsuit; pursuant to federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), if a litigant files three or more meritless or duplicative lawsuits in forma pauperis, he is barred from filing additional lawsuits free of charge.

8. F., the petitioner denounces the conditions of his incarceration, alleging harassment, discriminatory treatment and violation of his correspondence, and contending that he is held in CMU or SHU units with inmates convicted on terrorism charges. On December 15, 2008, the petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Remedy with the Bureau of Prisoners, alleging that he was being prevented from calling the Turkish Consulate.⁹ The Correctional Counselor and the Administrator of National Inmate Appeals both told him that if he added the Turkish Consulate’s number to his “phone list” he would be able to contact the Consulate. Additionally, he alleges that from August 4, 2008, until this petition was submitted on December 11, 2011, he was deprived of necessary medical treatment by prison staff. In September 2011, the petitioner filed a constitutional lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the United S.s Penitentiary, M., Clinical Director Dr. David S.¹⁰, in which he alleged that Dr. S. was “deliberately indifferent” to his medical needs, involving his kidney stones, inguinal hernia, dental problems, and a “head infection.” In an opinion dated M. 30, 2015, the Court granted summary judgement in favor of Dr. S. regarding all four allegations¹¹, finding that the defendant had appropriately monitored and treated the petitioner’s conditions, and that some claims were meritless because the defendant was absent from USP M. for seven of the eight months the petitioner complained of pain, and finally that he had no control over dental treatment procedures. The petitioner appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which in turn dismissed the appeal on October 28, 2016, for failure to pay the requisite filing fee. The petitioner’s appeal, along with the original constitutional action he filed in 2011, were all filed in forma pauperis, while the petitioner was barred from...