Scars of an Abduction : Courts: A Mexican physician forcibly taken to the United States and imprisoned is suing the government for $20 million.

Humberto Alvarez Machain is reunited with his wife and four children in Mexico, practicing medicine once again, free to pursue a normal life.

But even as the public memory of his notorious case fades, the Guadalajara physician says the hurt of his forced abduction and almost three years of subsequent incarceration in the United States has left irreparable scars.

“It has been very difficult for me and my family,” Alvarez told reporters Thursday in a telephone conference call from Mexico to the Los Angeles offices of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is representing the doctor in a $20-million suit against the U.S. government.

Alvarez’s 1990 abduction in Mexico, arranged by U.S. authorities, provoked outrage throughout Latin America and severely strained U.S.-Mexico relations.

The gynecologist, allegedly a personal physician for Guadalajara drug kingpins, was forcibly taken to the United States and charged with complicity in the kidnaping and murder of Enrique Camarena, an agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. A federal judge in Los Angeles acquitted Alvarez of all charges in December, 1992, calling the government’s case wild speculation.

Alvarez was released after more than 32 months in U.S. custody. He immediately returned to Mexico.

*

ACLU officials arranged Thursday’s telephone hookup and briefed U.S. and Mexican journalists on the status of Alvarez’s civil suit, which is working its way through the system.

The doctor sued the U.S. government, two DEA agents who helped arrange the abduction, two former high-ranking DEA officials, and seven Mexican citizens who allegedly participated in the abduction, some of whom are believed to be living in the United States under government protection. Alvarez is seeking damages on a variety of claims and alleged constitutional violations, including kidnaping, torture, arbitrary detention, false imprisonment and assault.

U.S. officials have sought to have the suit dismissed, denying any wrongdoing against Alvarez.

Last month, U.S. District Judge John G. Davies in Los Angeles gave Alvarez a partial victory in the civil case, denying the government motion to dismiss the doctor’s lawsuit.

Alvarez called the judge’s action very courageous, adding that it helped boost his faith in the U.S. legal system. “I have a lot of confidence that, in my case, there will be justice,” said Alvarez, 47.

Carl Stern, a Justice Department spokesman in Washington, declined to comment on the judge’s ruling.

The doctor says he is short of cash and unable to return to private practice in Guadalajara, working instead in a federal clinic and living off that limited income and receipts from his family’s restaurants. He says he can’t get over the fact that his father suffered a fatal heart attack while he was in jail--an attack he attributes in part to the stress associated with the abduction and incarceration. The trauma of separation also sent two of his children into psychological counseling, Alvarez said.

However, while allowing the case to proceed, Davies’ ruling was by no means a total victory for Alvarez.

*

Davies rejected parts of Alvarez’s sweeping suit, narrowing, for instance, any potential government liability before July, 1991--more than a year after Alvarez was abducted and brought to the United States. Claims against the United States must be filed within two years, Davies noted, and Alvarez did not file his claim until July, 1993.

The judge also ruled that the U.S. government was immune from Alvarez’s claims of prolonged arbitrary detention.

In addition, Davies rejected claims filed under the Torture Victim Protection Act, a 1991 law designed to help compensate victims. The statute was inapplicable, Davies ruled, because the alleged mistreatment of Alvarez occurred before the act was in effect.

The doctors’ attorneys are contemplating an appeal of those findings unfavorable to Alvarez, said Robin S. Toma, an ACLU lawyer.

“Our purpose is to vindicate Dr. Alvarez’s human and civil rights,” Toma said.

Among other things, Toma said that the ruling would allow Alvarez to pursue damage claims based on the government’s alleged withholding of evidence that may have cleared Alvarez.