Salissou Karim-Seidou v. Cma Cgm (america) LLC

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1005
___________
SALISSOU KARIM-SEIDOU,
Appellant
v.
CMA CGM (AMERICA) LLC; TROY CONTAINER LINES LTD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-12579)
District Judge: Honorable Jamel K. Semper
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on July 1, 2025
Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 4, 2025)
___________
OPINION*
___________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Salissou Karim-Seidou appeals from the District Court’s
dismissal of his claims. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
I.
Karim-Seidou’s claims stem from a 2018 transaction involving goods shipped
from New York to Lomé, Togo.1 Karim-Seidou is the president of Karimas Import
Export, LLC (“Karimas”). In 2018, Karimas entered into an agreement with a freight
forwarder to load goods onto a cargo container and arrange for their transport to Togo.
The freight forwarder contracted with Troy Container Lines Ltd. (“Troy”) to book the
shipment, and Troy booked the shipment with CMA CGM America LLC (“CMA
CGM”).
Issues with documentation prevented Karimas’ goods from shipping for several
weeks and resulted in the accumulation of daily storage fees for the container. The
container ultimately arrived in Togo several months later, but it was not released to
Karim-Seidou because of the accumulated fees, which Karim-Seidou contends he should
not have had to pay.
1 Because we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only the facts necessary for
this discussion. These facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Karimas brought a counseled lawsuit in state court regarding this conflict against
CMA CGM, Troy, and the freight forwarder; it was removed to federal court. In 2021,
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut concluded that Karimas
was bound by the forum selection clause in CMA CGM’s and Troy’s bills of lading,
making the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille in France the sole proper forum for
Karimas to pursue its claims. See Karimas Imp. Exp., LLC v. Guaranteed Int’l Shipping
LLC, No. 3:19-cv-01447, 2021 WL 9409508, at *8-9 (D. Conn. July 27, 2021).
Accordingly, the District Court did not address the merits of its claims. Karimas did not
appeal.
In 2023, Karim-Seidou initiated the underlying pro se federal lawsuit on his own
behalf against Troy and CMA CGM. In his initial complaint, he claimed that defendants
(1) committed larceny, “false pretenses [l]arceny,” and fraud in violation of 10 U.S.C.
§ 921 and 41 U.S.C. § 6503, and (2) breached their contract in violation of “article 1170
of the United States civil code.” Compl. at 10-18. Karim-Seidou then filed an amended
complaint in which he instead raised two claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting
that his constitutional rights were violated by defendants’ actions. On defendants’
motions, the District Court dismissed Karim-Seidou’s claims with prejudice and without
leave to amend. Karim-Seidou timely appealed. Dkt. No. 104.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

-- 3 of 5 --

4
over the District Court’s dismissal of Karim-Seidou’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir.
2009). Dismissal is appropriate “if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court
finds that [the] plaintiff’s claims lack facial plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen
Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis in the record. See
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
III.
We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Karim-Seidou’s claims. As the
District Court properly concluded, he cannot bring § 1983 claims against private entities
Troy or CGM CMA, as he has not provided factual allegations suggesting that they were
state actors for purposes of § 1983. See Benn v. Universal Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d
165, 169-73 (3d Cir. 2004). Karim-Seidou made conclusory statements that Troy and
CGM CMA acted under color of state law, but that is insufficient to avoid dismissal.2
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Karim-Seidou now contends that the District Court misunderstood his amended
complaint to be replacing his initial set of claims with § 1983 claims, as he argues that he
2 We note that Karim-Seidou filed a reply brief and an amended reply brief without
requesting leave to file the amended brief. Regardless of which filing we consider,
however, we do not consider arguments and allegations Karim-Seidou raises for the first
time in reply to appellees’ briefs. See Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch.
Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2017).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
did not understand the implications of framing his claims in this way. He contends that
the original framing of his claims would withstand dismissal.
However, even if the District Court had considered the claims Karim-Seidou had
brought in his original complaint, dismissal would have been appropriate. The statutes
that he purported to rely on in bringing his claims have no connection to his allegations.
See 10 U.S.C. § 921 (defining larceny under the Uniform Code of Military Justice); 41
U.S.C. § 6503 (describing remedies in the event of a breach of required contract terms
involving a contract with a United States agency). His remaining citation — to “article
1170 of the United States civil code” — does not refer to any federal statute. See Compl.
at 16, 18. Accordingly, his original complaint also did not present any claims for which
relief could be granted.
Finally, Karim-Seidou had two opportunities to properly frame his claims in this
case and has not otherwise raised anything in the District Court or on appeal suggesting
that he could state a claim if given another chance. Under these circumstances, the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Karim-Seidou further leave to
amend. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.3
3 We grant Appellees’ motions to file supplemental appendices with additional
documents that were part of the District Court record.

-- 5 of 5 --