AINAN v. CASA ICF et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
FARAH ALI AINAN, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:25-cv-00648-SDN
)
CASA ICF, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, who resides in the Republic of Djibouti, commenced this action to obtain
information regarding his child, who is disabled and has allegedly been placed with
Defendant Casa ICF. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) According to Plaintiff, the child had been
living “there” (which the Court construes as Maine) with the child’s mother and
grandmother before the child was placed with Defendant Casa ICF. 	(Complaint at 1.)
Plaintiff alleges that he has been unable to obtain from Defendant Casa ICF any
information regarding the child’s medical condition.
“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.’” 	Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013)
(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “It is to
be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S.
at 377 (citation omitted). 	“A court is duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects in its
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” 	Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir.
Case 2:25-cv-00648-SDN Document 2 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2011). That is, issues of subject matter jurisdiction “can be raised sua sponte at any time”
because they relate to the fundamental Article III limitations on federal courts. See McBee
v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107, 127 (1st Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over the
matter. 	Under 	the 	Hague 	Convention 	on 	the 	Civil 	Aspects 	of 	International 	Child
Abduction, which was implemented in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act
(ICARA), 22 U.S.C. § 9001, et seq., a parent may petition a federal court for the return of
a child to “the child’s country of habitual residence when the child has been wrongfully
removed to or retained in another country.” Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666, 670 (2022).
ICARA, however, “empower[s] courts in the United States to determine only rights under
the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.” 	Id. (quoting
22 U.S.C. § 9001(b)(4)).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that the child has been wrongfully removed from
another country nor wrongfully retained in the United States. 	Rather, Plaintiff contends
that the child has been placed with an organization that has refused to provide him with
information regarding the child. 	The issue appears to involve a dispute over access to
information rather than the wrongful removal of the child. 	The Court lacks jurisdiction
under ICARA, therefore, and no other basis for subject matter jurisdiction is apparent from
Plaintiff’s pleading.
Because Plaintiff has not established the Court’s jurisdiction, dismissal of the
matter is appropriate. Given the complexity of the jurisdictional issue, however, before the
Court dismisses the matter for lack of jurisdiction, Plaintiff should be afforded the
Case 2:25-cv-00648-SDN Document 2 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
opportunity to supplement his complaint to provide additional information regarding how
the child came to reside in the United States, the circumstances that resulted in the
placement of the child with Casa ICF, and the bases for this Court’s jurisdiction.
Based on the analysis set forth herein, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter
unless within 30 days of the date of this recommended decision, Plaintiff supplements his
complaint with information that demonstrates that this Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of Plaintiff’s complaint.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge's report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within thirty
(30) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 5th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00648-SDN Document 2 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>