## Facts

- Falun Gong practitioners sued two People’s Republic of China (PRC) local government officials, alleging torture, arbitrary detention, sexual assault, and related abuses committed as part of an anti–Falun Gong campaign.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).
- Defendants did not appear or respond; the clerk entered default.
- Plaintiffs moved for default judgment; the motions were referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.
- The United States submitted statements expressing foreign-relations concerns and urging caution while the Supreme Court decided *Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain*; the district court stayed proceedings pending that decision.
- After *Sosa*, the court ordered supplemental briefing, received further input from the United States, and adopted an amended report and recommendation.
- Plaintiffs supported their motions with declarations and documentation describing arrests, detention, forced labor, physical abuse, and sexual assault.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged abuses stated actionable ATS claims after *Sosa* by resting on “specific, universal, and obligatory” international-law norms.
2. Whether the TVPA permits civil liability against individual foreign officials for torture committed under color of foreign law on the pleaded facts.
3. Whether sovereign-immunity doctrines (including FSIA-based arguments) barred suits against individual PRC officials, particularly for conduct alleged to be “official acts.”
4. Whether the requirements for default judgment were met, including adequate service, jurisdiction, legal sufficiency of claims, and evidentiary support for liability and relief.

## Decision

- The district court overruled plaintiffs’ objections and adopted the amended report and recommendation in full.
- The court granted default judgment in part and denied it in part.
- The court recognized that certain core allegations—especially torture and closely related serious abuses—supported relief under the ATS (as limited by *Sosa*) and under the TVPA.
- The court rejected a blanket immunity bar for the individual defendants, concluding that immunity did not require dismissal of all claims, particularly those premised on torture and comparable grave violations.
- The court found service and evidentiary submissions sufficient for some claims and remedies, but declined relief on other claims or requested remedies that did not satisfy governing legal or factual standards.

## Legal Principles

- The ATS is jurisdictional but can support a narrow class of claims based on international-law norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory, comparable in definiteness to historically recognized paradigms.
- Torture and certain closely related grave abuses can qualify as actionable international-law violations for ATS purposes when pleaded and supported with sufficient evidence.
- The TVPA authorizes suits against individuals for torture (and extrajudicial killing) committed under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of a foreign nation.
- In default proceedings, well-pleaded allegations may be treated as admitted, but the court must still confirm subject-matter jurisdiction, legal sufficiency, adequate service, and an evidentiary basis for liability and relief.
- Immunity for foreign states does not automatically extend to individual officials in every case; conduct alleged to be torture and similar grave violations may fall outside the category of protected “official acts” for immunity purposes.

## Conclusion

The court entered a partial default judgment against individual PRC officials for torture-based claims cognizable under the ATS (as limited by *Sosa*) and the TVPA, while denying other claims or relief that were not sufficiently supported or were not legally cognizable, and it declined to treat sovereign-immunity defenses as a categorical bar to suit for the alleged grave human-rights violations.


Doe I v. Liu Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2004)