turkmen v. ashcroft second circuit ruling 6-17-15
DESCRIPTION
Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 9/11, September 11, 2001,TRANSCRIPT
-
13981(L)Turkmen,etal.v.Hasty,etal.
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2
34
AugustTerm,201356
(Argued:May1,2014Decided:June17,2015)78
DocketNos.13981,13999,131002,131003,131662910
11IBRAHIMTURKMEN,AKHILSACHDEVA,AHMERIQBALABBASI,12ANSERMEHMOOD,BENAMARBENATTA,AHMEDKHALIFA,13
SAEEDHAMMOUDA,PURNABAJRACHARYA,onbehalfofthemselvesand14allotherssimilarlysituated,15
16PlaintiffsAppelleesCrossAppellants, 17
18v.19
20DENNISHASTY,formerWardenoftheMetropolitanDetentionCenter,21MICHAELZENK,formerWardenoftheMetropolitanDetentionCenter,22JAMESSHERMAN,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterAssociate23
WardenforCustody,2425 DefendantsAppellants,2627
JOHNASHCROFT,formerAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStates,28ROBERTMUELLER,formerDirector,FederalBureauofInvestigation,29
JAMESW.ZIGLAR,formerCommissioner,Immigrationand30NaturalizationService,31
32 DefendantsCrossAppellees,3334
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page1 of 109
-
2
SALVATORELOPRESTI,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterCaptain,1JOSEPHCUCITI,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterLieutenant,2
3 Defendants.*4
56Before: 7
POOLER,RAGGI,ANDWESLEY,CircuitJudges.89
10AppealfromaJanuary15,2013MemorandumandOrderoftheUnitedStates11DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofNewYork(Gleeson,J.)grantinginpart12anddenyinginpartDefendantsmotionstodismiss.CrossappealfromanApril1310,2013JudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictof14NewYork(Gleeson,J.),whichwasenteredpursuanttoRule54(b)oftheFederal15RulesofCivilProcedureonApril11,2013,grantingcertainDefendantsmotions16todismiss.WeAFFIRMinpartandREVERSEinpart.JudgeRaggiconcursin17partinthejudgmentanddissentsinpartinaseparateopinion.18
19RACHELA.MEEROPOL,CenterforConstitutionalRights,20NewYork,NY(MichaelWinger,SunitaPatel,BaherA.21Azmy,CenterforConstitutionalRights,NewYork,NY;22NancyL.Kestenbaum,JenniferL.Robbins,JoanneSum23Ping,Covington&BurlingLLP,NewYork,NY,onthe24brief),forPlaintiffsAppelleesCrossAppellants.2526HUGHD.SANDLER,Crowell&MoringLLP,NewYork,27NY(ShariRossLahlou,Crowell&MoringLLP,28Washington,D.C.,onthebrief),forDefendantAppellant29DennisHasty.30
31JOSHUAC.KLEIN(AllanN.Taffet,KirkL.Brett,Megan32E.Uhle,onthebrief),Duval&StachenfeldLLP,New33York,NY,forDefendantAppellantMichaelZenk.34
*TheClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoamendthecaptionassetforthabove.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page2 of 109
-
3
1JEFFREYA.LAMKEN,MoloLamkenLLP,Washington,2D.C.(MartinV.Totaro,MoloLamkenLLP,Washington,3D.C.;DebraL.Roth,JuliaH.Perkins,Shaw,Bransford4&RothP.C.,Washington,D.C.,onthebrief),for5DefendantAppellantJamesSherman.67H.THOMASBYRONIII,AppellateAttorney,Civil8Division(StuartF.Delery,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,9RonaldC.MachenJr.,UnitedStatesAttorney,Dana10Boente,UnitedStatesAttorney,BarbaraL.Herwig,11AppellateAttorney,CivilDivision,onthebrief),U.S.12DepartmentofJustice,Washington,D.C.,forDefendants13CrossAppelleesJohnAshcroftandRobertMueller.14
15WILLIAMALDENMCDANIEL,JR.,BallardSpahrLLP,16Baltimore,MD,forDefendantCrossAppelleeJamesW.17Ziglar.18
19TrinaRealmuto,NationalImmigrationProjectofthe20NationalLawyersGuild,Boston,MA;MaryKenney,21AmericanImmigrationCouncil,Washington,D.C.,22amicicuriaeinsupportofPlaintiffsAppelleesCross23Appellants.24
2526
POOLERANDWESLEY,CircuitJudges:27
OnSeptember11,2001,19ArabMuslimhijackerswhocounted28
themselvesmembersingoodstandingofalQaedahijackedfourairplanesand29
killedover3,000peopleonAmericansoil.Ashcroftv.Iqbal(Iqbal),556U.S.662,30
682(2009).Thiscaseraisesadifficultanddelicatesetoflegalissuesconcerning31
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page3 of 109
-
4
individualswhowerecaughtupinthepost9/11investigationeventhoughthey1
wereunquestionablyneverinvolvedinterroristactivity.Plaintiffsareeight2
male,outofstatusaliens1whowerearrestedonimmigrationchargesand3
detainedfollowingthe9/11attacks.PlaintiffswereheldattheMetropolitan4
DetentionCenter(theMDC)inBrooklyn,NewYork,orthePassaicCountyJail5
(Passaic)inPaterson,NewJersey;theirindividualdetentionsgenerallyranged6
fromapproximatelythreetoeightmonths.7
Theoperativecomplaint,aputativeclassaction,assertsvariousclaims8
againstformerAttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroft;formerDirectoroftheFederal9
BureauofInvestigation(theFBI)RobertMueller;formerCommissionerofthe10
ImmigrationandNaturalizationService(theINS)JamesZiglar;formerMDC11
WardenDennisHasty;formerMDCWardenMichaelZenk;andformerMDC12
AssociateWardenJamesSherman.2Allclaimsariseoutofallegedly13
1Weusethetermoutofstatusalientomeanonewhohaseither(1)enteredtheUnitedStatesillegallyandisdeportableifapprehended,or(2)enteredtheUnitedStateslegallybutwhohasfallenoutofstatusbyviolatingtherulesorguidelinesforhisnonimmigrantstatus(oftenbyoverstayinghisvisa)intheUnitedStatesandisdeportable.2Foreaseofreference,werefertoAshcroft,Mueller,andZiglarcollectivelyastheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)Defendants,andHasty,Sherman,andZenkcollectivelyastheMDCDefendants.TheoperativecomplaintalsoallegesclaimsagainstMDCofficialsJosephCucitiandSalvatoreLopresti.Cucitididnotappealthedistrictcourtsdecision,andLoprestifiledanoticeofappealbutdidnottimelypaythefilingfeeorfile
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page4 of 109
-
5
discriminatoryandpunitivetreatmentPlaintiffssufferedwhileconfinedatthe1
MDCorPassaic.2
BACKGROUND3
I. ProceduralHistory34
PlaintiffsinitiatedthisactionoverthirteenyearsagoonApril17,2002.5
Overthefollowingtwoandonehalfyears,Plaintiffsamendedtheircomplaint6
threetimes.InJune2006,followingaseriesofmotionstodismiss,thedistrict7
courtdismissedPlaintiffsunlawfullengthofdetentionclaimsbutpermittedto8
proceed,interalia,thesubstantivedueprocessandequalprotectionclaims9
challengingtheconditionsofconfinementattheMDC.SeeTurkmenv.Ashcroft10
(TurkmenI),No.02CV2307(JG),2006WL1662663,at*3336,4041(E.D.N.Y.11
June14,2006),affdinpart,vacatedinpart,Turkmenv.Ashcroft(TurkmenII),58912
F.3d542(2dCir.2009)(percuriam),remandedtoTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat13
314.PlaintiffsandDefendantsappealedvariousaspectsofthatruling.14
Twosignificanteventsoccurredwhiletheappealwaspending.First,six15
oftheoriginaleightnamedPlaintiffsatthattimewithdreworsettledtheirclaims16abrief.LoprestisappealwasdismissedpursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure31(c).Thus,wedonotaddresstheclaimsagainstCucitiandLopresti.3Foramorecomprehensivereviewofthiscasesproceduralhistory,seeTurkmenv.Ashcroft(TurkmenIII),915F.Supp.2d314,33133(E.D.N.Y.2013).
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page5 of 109
-
6
againstthegovernment.SeeTurkmenII,589F.3dat544n.1,545.Thisleftonly1
IbrahimTurkmenandAkhilSachdeva,bothofwhomweredetainedatPassaic,2
asopposedtotheMDC.Second,theSupremeCourtissuedIqbal,556U.S.at662,3
whichalteredthepleadingregimegoverningPlaintiffsclaims.Inlightofthese4
eventsandtheremainingPlaintiffsstateddesiretorepleadclaimsuniquetothe5
settlingPlaintiffs,thisCourtaffirmedthedismissalofthelengthofdetention6
claimsbutvacatedandremandedwithrespecttotheconditionsofconfinement7
claims.SeeTurkmenII,589F.3dat54647,54950.8
Onremand,thedistrictcourtpermittedPlaintiffstoamendtheircomplaint9
andgrantedleaveforsixadditionalPlaintiffs,allofwhomhadbeenheldatthe10
MDC,tointervene.TheeightcurrentnamedPlaintiffsareofMiddleEastern,11
NorthAfrican,orSouthAsianorigin;sixofthemareMuslim,oneisHindu,and12
oneisBuddhist.TheFourthAmendedComplaint(theComplaint),the13
operativecomplaintinthiscase,restatesPlaintiffsputativeclassclaimson14
behalfofthe9/11detainees,aclassofsimilarlysituatednoncitizenswhoare15
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page6 of 109
-
7
AraborMuslim,orwereperceivedbyDefendantsasAraborMuslim,andwere1
arrestedanddetainedinresponsetothe9/11attacks.42
TheComplaintdramaticallywinnowedtherelevantclaimsand3
defendants;itallegessevenclaimsagainsteightdefendants.Thefirstsixclaims,4
allbroughtpursuanttoBivensv.SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFederalBureauof5
Narcotics,403U.S.388(1971),are:(1)aconditionsofconfinementclaimunderthe6
DueProcessClause;(2)anequalprotectionclaimallegingthatDefendants7
subjectedPlaintiffstothechallengedconditionsbecauseoftheir,ortheir8
perceived,race,religion,ethnicity,and/ornationalorigin;(3)aclaimarising9
undertheFreeExerciseClause;(4)and(5)twoclaimsgenerallyalleging10
interferencewithcounsel;and(6)aclaimundertheFourthandFifth11
Amendmentsallegingunreasonableandpunitivestripsearches.Theseventh12
andfinalclaimallegesaconspiracyunder42U.S.C.1985(3).TheDOJand13
MDCDefendantsmovedtodismisstheComplaintforfailuretostateaclaim,on14
4BenamarBenattawasoriginallydetainedbyCanadianauthoritiesonSeptember5,2001,aftercrossingtheCanadianborderwithfalsedocumentation.FollowingtheSeptember11attacks,BenattawastransportedbacktotheUnitedStatesanddetainedinthechallengedconditionsofconfinementandpursuanttothepost9/11investigation;therefore,wecallhima9/11detainee.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page7 of 109
-
8
qualifiedimmunitygrounds,and,insomeinstances,basedonatheorythat1
Bivensreliefdidnotextendtotheclaimatissue.2
II. TheOIGReports3
Plaintiffssupplementedthefactualallegationsintheiramended4
complaintswithinformationgleanedfromtworeportsbytheOfficeofthe5
InspectorGeneraloftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice(theOIG6
reports)5thatdocumentedthefederallawenforcementresponseto9/11and7
conditionsattheMDCandPassaic.8
TheOIGreports,whichtheComplaintincorporate[s]byreferenceexcept9
wherecontradictedbytheallegationsof[theComplaint],Compl.3n.1,seealso10
id.5n.2,playasignificantroleinthiscase.6Primarily,theOIGreportsprovide11
5TherearetwoOIGreports.ThefirstOIGreport,publishedinJune2003,coversmultipleaspectsoflawenforcementsresponseto9/11.SeeU.S.DeptofJustice,OfficeoftheInspectorGeneral,TheSeptember11Detainees:AReviewoftheTreatmentofAliensHeldonImmigrationChargesinConnectionwiththeInvestigationoftheSeptember11Attacks(April2003)(theOIGReport),availableathttp://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf.ThesecondOIGreport,publishedinDecember2003,focusesonabusesattheMDC.SeeU.S.DeptofJustice,OfficeoftheInspectorGeneral,SupplementalReportonSeptember11DetaineesAllegationsofAbuseattheMetropolitanDetentionCenterinBrooklyn,NewYork(Dec.2003)(theSupplementalOIGReport),availableathttp://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0312/final.pdf.6VariousDefendantschallengethedistrictcourtsdecisiontoconsidertheOIGreportstotheextentthattheyarenotcontradictedbytheComplaint.Defendantsarecorrectthatacomplaintinclude[s]anywritteninstrumentattachedtoitasanexhibitorany
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page8 of 109
-
9
invaluablecontextfortheunprecedentedchallengesfollowing9/11andthe1
variousstrategiesfederalagenciesemployedtoconfrontthesechallenges.The2
reportshelporientouranalysisoftheComplaint.3
III. PlaintiffsAllegations74
Intheaftermathofthe9/11attacks,theFBIandotheragencieswithinthe5
DOJimmediatelyinitiatedanimmenseinvestigationaimedatidentifyingthe6
9/11perpetratorsandpreventinganyfurtherattacks.SeeOIGReportat1,1112.7
PENTTBOM,thePentagon/TwinTowersBombingsinvestigation,wasinitially8
runoutoftheFBIsfieldoffices,butshortlythereafter,Muellerorderedthat9
managementoftheinvestigationbeswitchedtotheFBIsStrategicInformation10
statementsordocumentsincorporatedinitbyreference.CortecIndus.,Inc.v.SumHoldingL.P.,949F.2d42,47(2dCir.1991);accordDiFolcov.MSNBCCableL.L.C.,622F.3d104,111(2dCir.2010).Buttheirobjectionmissesthepoint.Thedistrictcourtaccuratelyexplainedthatatthepleadingstage,althoughwemustconsiderthewordsonthepage(thatis,wecannotdisregardthefactthattheOIGreportsmakeparticularfindings),weneednotconsiderthetruthofthosewordstotheextentdisputedbyPlaintiffs.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat342n.14(citingDiFolco,622F.3dat111).EvenwerewetoviewtheOIGreportsasfullyincorporated,relianceonanyassertionoffactrequiresacredibilityassessmentthatwearefundamentallyunsuitedtoundertakeattheRule12(b)(6)stage.AndalthoughtheOIGreportscannotdeterminativelyproveordisprovePlaintiffsallegations,theyremainrelevanttoouranalysisbecausetheysupplementourunderstandingofthelawenforcementresponseto9/11.7TheallegationssetforthhereinaredrawnfromtheComplaintandthoseportionsoftheOIGreportsincorporatedbyreference.Seesupranote6.WepresumetheveracityofPlaintiffswellpleadedallegations.Iqbal,556U.S.at679.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page9 of 109
-
10
andOperationsCenter(theSIOC)atFBIHeadquartersinWashington,D.C.1
MuellerpersonallydirectedPENTTBOMfromtheSIOCandremainedindaily2
contactwithFBIfieldoffices.3
InconjunctionwithPENTTBOM,theDeputyAttorneyGeneralsOffice4
(theDAGsOffice)establishedtheSIOCWorkingGrouptocoordinateefforts5
amongthevariouscomponentswithinthe[DOJ]thathadaninvestigative6
interestin[,]orresponsibilityfor[,]theSeptember11detainees.Id.at15.8The7
SIOCWorkingGroupincludedrepresentativesfrom,amongotheragencies,the8
FBI,theINS,andtheDAGsOffice.Thisgroupmetdailyifnotmultipletimes9
inasingledayinthemonthsfollowing9/11;itsdutiesincludedcoordinat[ing]10
informationandevidencesharingamongtheFBI,INS,andU.S.Attorneys11
officesandensur[ing]thataliensdetainedaspartofthePENTTBOM12
investigationwouldnotbereleaseduntiltheywereclearedbytheFBIof13
involvementwiththeSeptember11attacksorterrorismingeneral.Id.14
Giventhatthe9/11hijackerswereallforeignnationals,theDOJresponse15
carriedamajorimmigrationlawcomponent.Seeid.at12.AshcroftandMueller16
developedapolicywherebyanyMuslimorArabmanencounteredduringthe178TheSIOCWorkingGroupacquiredthisnamebecauseitsinitialmeetingsoccurredattheFBIsSIOC.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page10 of 109
-
11
investigationofatipreceivedinthe9/11terrorisminvestigation...and1
discoveredtobeanoncitizenwhohadviolatedthetermsofhisvisa,was2
arrested.Compl.1;seealsoid.3949.Ashcroftalsocreatedtherelated3
holduntilclearedpolicy,whichmandatedthatindividualsarrestedinthe4
wakeof9/11notbereleasedfromcustodyuntil[FBIHeadquarters]5
affirmativelyclearedthemofterroristties.Id.2;seealsoOIGReportat3839.6
Withinaweekof9/11,theFBIhadreceivedapproximately96,000tipsfrom7
civiliansacrossthecountry.Thesetipsvariedsignificantlyinqualityand8
reliability.9Mueller[nonetheless]orderedthateveryoneofthesetipsbe9
investigated,eveniftheywereimplausibleontheirface.Compl.40.10
Ultimately,762detaineeswereplacedontheINSCustodyList(theINSList)11
thatthenmadethemsubjecttoAshcroftsholduntilclearedpolicy.12
Inthemonthsfollowing9/11,theDOJDefendantsreceiveddetaileddaily13
reportsofthearrestsanddetentions.Id.47.AshcroftandMuelleralsomet149Forinstance,TurkmencametotheFBIsattentionwhenhislandlordcalledtheFBIs9/11hotlineandreportedthatsherentedanapartmentinherhometoseveralMiddleEasternmen,andshewouldfeelawfulifhertenantswereinvolvedinterrorismandshedidntcall.Compl.251.TheFBIknewthatheronlybasisforsuspectingthesemenwasthattheywereMiddleEastern;indeed,shereportedthattheyweregoodtenants,andpaidtheirrentontime.Id.AnotheralienwasarrestedaftertheFBIreceivedatipthatstatedthatthesmallgrocerystorewhereheworkedwasoverstaffed,thusarousingthetipsterssuspicionsabouttheMiddleEasternmenthatworkedthere.OIGReportat17.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page11 of 109
-
12
regularlywithasmallgroupofgovernmentofficialsinWashington,D.C.,and1
mappedoutwaystoexertmaximumpressureontheindividualsarrestedin2
connectionwiththeterrorisminvestigation.Id.61.10Thissmallgroup3
discussedanddecideduponastrategytorestrictthe9/11detaineesabilityto4
contacttheoutsideworldanddelaytheirimmigrationhearings.Thegroupalso5
decidedtospreadthewordamonglawenforcementpersonnelthatthe9/116
detaineesweresuspectedterrorists[]...andthattheyneededtobeencouraged7
inanywaypossibletocooperate.Id.8
Plaintiffs,withtheexceptionofTurkmenandSachdeva,wereheldatthe9
MDC.UnderMDCconfinementpolicy,the9/11detaineesplacedintheMDC10
wereheldintheMDCsAdministrativeMaximumSpecialHousingUnit(the11
ADMAXSHU)aparticularlyrestrictivetypeofSHUnotfoundinmost12
[BureauofPrisons(BOP)]facilitiesbecausethenormalSHUisusuallysufficient13
10ItisunclearwhetherthissmallgroupreferstotheSIOCWorkingGrouporadistinctgroupinvolvingAshcroft,Mueller,andotherseniorWashington,D.C.,officials.OnepossibilityisthatPlaintiffsarereferringtothesmallgroupthatconsistedofAshcroft,Mueller,MichaelChertoff,whowasthenAssistantAttorneyGeneraloftheCriminalDivision,andtheDeputyAttorneyGeneral.SeeOIGReportat13.AccordingtoChertoff,thisgroupdiscussedtheDOJspost9/11lawenforcementstrategyandpolicies.GiventhemakeupofthisgroupandtheSIOCWorkingGroup,itisreasonabletoinferthatinformationflowedbetweenthem;forinstance,Chertoffsdeputy,AliceFisher,wasplacedinchargeofimmigrationissuesfortheCriminalDivisionandpersonallyestablishedtheSIOCWorkingGroup.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page12 of 109
-
13
forcorrectinginmatemisbehaviorandaddressingsecurityconcerns.Id.76.1
TheconfinementpolicywascreatedbytheMDCDefendantsinconsultation2
withtheFBI.Id.65.3
ConditionsintheADMAXSHUweresevereandbegantoreceivemedia4
attentionsoonafterdetentionsbegan.SeeOIGReportat2,5.Detaineeswere:5
placedintinycellsforover23hoursaday,Compl.5;stripsearchedevery6
timetheywereremovedfromorreturnedtotheircell[s],...evenwhentheyhad7
noconceivableopportunitytoobtaincontraband,id.112;providedwith8
meagerandbarelyediblefood,id.128;deniedsleepbybrightlightsthat9
wereleftonintheircellsfor24hoursaday,id.119,and,[o]nsomeoccasions,10
correctionalofficerswalkedbyevery20minutesthroughoutthenight,kicked11
thedoorstowakeupthedetainees,andyelledhighlydegradingandoffensive12
comments,id.120;constructivelydeniedrecreationandexposedtothe13
elements,seeid.12223;deniedaccesstobasichygieneitemsliketoilet14
paper,soap,towels,toothpaste,[and]eatingutensils,id.130;andprohibited15
frommovingaroundtheunit,usingthetelephonefreely,usingthecommissary,16
oraccessingMDChandbooks,whichexplainedhowtofilecomplaintsabout17
mistreatment,seeid.76,83,129,140.18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page13 of 109
-
14
MDCstaffalsosubjectedthe9/11detaineestofrequentphysicalandverbal1
abuse.Theabuseincludedslammingthe9/11detaineesintowalls;bendingor2
twistingtheirarms,hands,wrists,andfingers;liftingthemoffthegroundby3
theirarms;pullingontheirarmsandhandcuffs;steppingontheirlegrestraints;4
restrainingthemwithhandcuffsand/orshacklesevenwhileintheircells;and5
handlingtheminotherroughandinappropriateways.Seeid.105;seealso6
SupplementalOIGReportat828.MDCstaffalsoreferredtothe9/11detainees7
asterrorists,andotheroffensivenames;threaten[ed]themwithviolence;8
curs[ed]atthem;insult[ed]theirreligion;andma[de]humiliatingsexual9
commentsduringstripsearches.Compl.109.Specifically,Plaintiffsand10
putativeclassmembersattheMDCwerereferredtobystaffascamel[s],11
fuckingMuslims,andArabicasshole[s],id.110,147,218.12
TheMDCPlaintiffsdidnotreceivecopiesoftheKoranforweeksor13
monthsafterrequestingthem,andonePlaintiffneverreceivedacopy,pursuant14
toawrittenMDCpolicy...thatprohibitedthe9/11detaineesfromkeeping15
anything,includingaKoran,intheircell[s].Id.132.TheMDCPlaintiffswere16
alsodeniedtheHalalfoodrequiredbytheirMuslimfaith.Id.133.And17
MDCstafffrequentlyinterruptedPlaintiffsandclassmembersprayers,18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page14 of 109
-
15
includingbybangingoncelldoors,yellingderogatorycomments,and1
mockingthedetaineeswhiletheyprayed.Id.136.2
ThenamedMDCPlaintiffsindividualexperiencesseveralofwhichare3
highlightedbelowaddfurthertexturetotheircollectiveallegationsconcerning4
thearrestandconfinementofthe9/11detainees.5
A. AnserMehmood6
Mehmood,acitizenofPakistananddevoutMuslim,enteredtheUnited7
Statesonabusinessvisain1989withhiswife,Uzma,andtheirthreechildren.8
Afterhisvisaexpired,Mehmoodremainedinthecountryandstartedatrucking9
businessthatprovidedenoughearningstopurchaseahomeinNewJerseyand10
tosendfundstohisfamilyinPakistan.In2000,whilelivinginNewJersey,he11
andUzmahadtheirfourthchild.InMay2001,UzmasbrotheraUnitedStates12
citizensubmittedanimmigrationpetitionfortheentirefamily.13
OnthemorningofOctober3,2001,MehmoodwasasleepwithUzmaand14
theironeyearoldsonwhenFBIandINSagentsknockedonhisdoor.The15
agentssearchedMehmoodshomeandaskedwhetherhewasinvolvedwitha16
jihad.Id.157.Mehmoodadmittedthathehadoverstayedhisvisa.TheFBI17
informedMehmoodthattheywerenotinterestedinhim;theyhadcometoarrest18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page15 of 109
-
16
hiswifeUzma,whosenametheFBIhadencounteredwheninvestigating1
PlaintiffAhmerAbbasi,herbrother.MehmoodconvincedtheFBItoarresthim2
insteadofUzmabecausetheirsonwasstillbreastfeeding.TheAgenttold3
Mehmoodthattheyhadnochoicebuttoarrestoneoftheparents,butthat4
Mehmoodfacedaminorimmigrationviolationonly,andhewouldbeouton5
bailwithindays.Id.159.6
UponhisarrivalattheMDC,Mehmoodwasdraggedfromthevanby7
severallargecorrectionalofficers,whothrewhimintoseveralwallsonhisway8
intothefacility.Id.162.Hislefthandwasbrokenduringthisincidentand9
[t]heguardsthreatenedtokillhimifheaskedanyquestions.Id.His10
experienceintheADMAXSHUtrackedthatofother9/11detainees.For11
instance,[w]heneverMehmoodwasremovedfromhiscell,hewasplacedin12
handcuffs,chains,andshackles.FourormoreMDCstaffmemberstypically13
escortedhimtohisdestination,frequentlyinflictingunnecessarypainalongthe14
way,forexample,bybanginghimintothewall,dragginghim,carryinghim,and15
steppingonhisshacklesandpushinghisfaceintothewall.Id.166.Neither16
theFBInorINSinterviewedMehmoodfollowinghisarrest.Mehmoodwasnot17
releasedfromtheADMAXSHUuntilFebruary6,2002.18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page16 of 109
-
17
B. AhmedKhalifa1
Khalifa,whohadcompletedfiveyearstowardamedicaldegreeatthe2
UniversityofAlexandriainEgypt,cametotheUnitedStatesonastudentvisain3
July2001.HecametotheFBIsattentionaftertheFBIreceivedatipthatseveral4
ArabswholivedatKhalifasaddresswererentingapostofficebox,andpossibly5
sendingoutlargequantitiesofmoney.Id.195.OnSeptember30,2001,FBI,6
INS,andofficersfromtheNewYorkCityPoliceDepartmentcametothe7
apartmentKhalifasharedwithseveralEgyptianfriends.Theofficerssearched8
hiswalletandapparentlybecameveryinterestedinalistofphonenumbersof9
friendsinEgypt.Id.196.Aftersearchingtheapartment,theagentsasked10
KhalifaforhispassportandifhehadanythingtodowithSeptember11.Id.11
197.OneFBIagenttoldKhalifathattheywereonlyinterestedinthreeofhis12
roommates,butanotheragentsaidtheyalsoneededKhalifa,whomtheyarrested13
forworkingwithoutauthorization.Id.14
OnOctober1,2001,afterbrieflystoppingatalocalINSdetentionfacilityto15
completepaperwork,KhalifaandhisroommatesweretransportedtotheMDC.16
WhenhearrivedattheMDC,Khalifawasslammedintothewall,pushedand17
kickedbyMDCofficersandplacedintoawetcell,withamattressonthefloor.18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page17 of 109
-
18
Id.201.[His]wristswerecutandbruisedfromhishandcuffs,andhewas1
worriedaboutotherdetainees,whomheheardgaspingandmoaningthrough2
thewallsofhiscell.Id.3
FBIandINSagentsinterviewedKhalifaonOctober7,2001.Oneofthe4
agentsapologizedtoKhalifaafternoticingthebruisesonhiswrists.When5
KhalifastatedthatMDCguardswereabusinghim,theagentsstateditwas6
becausehewasMuslim.Id.202.Innotesfromtheinterview,theagentsdid7
notquestionKhalifascredibility,andnotednosuspicionoftiestoterrorismor8
interestinhiminconnectionwithPENTTBOM.9
Followingtheinterview,MDCguardsstripsearchedKhalifaandlaughed10
whentheymadehimbendoverandspreadhisbuttocks.Id.203.Khalifa11
complainsoftheconditionsassociatedwithdetentionintheADMAXSHU,12
includingarbitraryandabusivestripsearches,sleepdeprivation,constructive13
denialofrecreationalactivitiesandhygieneitems,anddeprivationoffoodand14
medicalattention.15
ByNovember5,2001,theNewYorkFBIfieldofficeaffirmativelycleared16
KhalifaofanytiestoterrorismandsenthisnametoFBIHeadquartersforfinal17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page18 of 109
-
19
clearance.KhalifawasnotofficiallycleareduntilDecember19,2001.He1
remainedconfinedintheADMAXSHUuntilmidJanuary2002.2
C. PurnaRajBajracharya3
BajracharyaisneitherMuslimnorArab.HeisaBuddhistandnativeof4
NepalwhoenteredtheUnitedStatesonathreemonthbusinessvisain1996.5
Afteroverstayinghisvisa,BajracharyaremainedinQueens,NewYork,forfive6
years,workingvariousoddjobstosendmoneyhometohiswifeandsonsin7
Nepal.Havingplannedtoreturnhomeinthefallorwinterof2001,Bajracharya8
usedavideocameratocapturethestreetshehadcometoknowinNewYork.9
HecametotheFBIsattentiononOctober25,2001,whenaQueensCounty10
DistrictAttorneysOfficeemployeeobservedan[A]rabmalevideotaping11
outsideaQueens[]officebuildingthatcontainedtheQueensCountyDistrict12
Attorney[s]OfficeandaNewYorkFBIoffice.Id.230.Whenapproachedby13
investigatorsfromtheDistrictAttorneysOffice,Bajracharyatriedtoexplainthat14
hewasatourist.Theinvestigatorstookhiminsidethebuildingandinterrogated15
himforfivehours.FBIandINSagentsarrivedatsomepointduringthe16
interrogation.Bajracharyasubsequentlytooktheagentstohisapartment;17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page19 of 109
-
20
providedthemwithhisidentificationdocuments,whichestablishedhiscountry1
oforigin;andadmittedtooverstayinghisvisa.2
Apparentlyduetothevideotaping,Bajracharyawasdesignatedasbeing3
ofspecialinteresttotheFBIandonOctober27,2001,hewastransportedtothe4
MDC.Id.23334.OnOctober30,2001,theFBIagentassignedto5
Bajracharyascase,alongwithotherlawenforcementpersonnel,interviewedhim6
withtheaidofaninterpreter.Duringtheinterview,Bajracharyawasasked7
whetherhewasMuslimorknewanyMuslims.Id.235.Bajracharya8
explainedthathewasnotMuslimandknewnoMuslims.TheFBIagentsnotes9
fromtheinterviewdonotquestionBajracharyascredibilityorexpressany10
suspicionoftiestoterrorism.Twodayslater,thesameagentaffirmatively11
clearedBajracharyaofanylinktoterrorism.ByNovember5,2001,theNew12
YorkFBIfieldofficecompleteditsinvestigationandforwardedBajracharyas13
casetoFBIHeadquartersforfinalclearance.DocumentsatFBIHeadquarters14
notethattheFBIhadnointerestinBajracharyabymidNovember2001.15
Nonetheless,hewasnotreleasedfromtheADMAXSHUuntilJanuary13,2002.16
TheFBIagentassignedtoBajracharyascasedidnotunderstandwhy17
BajracharyaremainedintheADMAXSHUthroughoutthisperiod;theagent18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page20 of 109
-
21
eventuallycalledtheLegalAidSocietyandadvisedanattorneythatBajracharya1
neededlegalrepresentation.2
Bajracharya,whois53andweighedabout130poundsatthetimeofhis3
arrest,complainsofthesameconditionscommontotheotherMDCPlaintiffs.4
Forinstance,hecouldnotsleepduetothelightinhiscell,andwhenhewas5
removedfromhiscell,hewouldbeplacedinhandcuffs,chains,andshackles6
andescortedbyfourormoreMDCstaffmembers.Bajracharyabecameso7
traumatizedbyhisexperienceintheADMAXSHUthatheweptconstantly.8
WhenanattorneyrequestedthattheMDCtransferBajracharyatogeneral9
population,anMDCdoctorrespondedthatBajracharyawascryingtoomuch,10
andwouldcauseariot.Id.241.11
IV. TheNewYorkListandtheOfInterestDesignation12
AsoriginallyarticulatedbyAshcroft,following9/11,theDOJsoughtto13
preventfutureterrorismbyarrestinganddetainingthosepeoplewhohave14
beenidentifiedaspersonswhoparticipatein,orlendsupportto,terrorist15
activities.OIGReportat12(internalquotationmarksomitted).Tothatend,16
MichaelPearson,whowasthenINSExecutiveAssociateCommissionerforField17
Operations,issuedaseriesofOperationalOrders,whichaddressedthe18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page21 of 109
-
22
responsibilitiesofINSagentsoperatingwiththeFBItoinvestigateleadson1
illegalaliens.ASeptember22,2001orderinstructedagentstoexercisesound2
judgmentandtolimitarreststothosealiensinwhomtheFBIhadaninterest3
anddiscouragedarrestincasesthatwereclearlyofnointerestinfurtheringthe4
investigationoftheterroristattacksofSeptember11th.Id.at45(internal5
quotationmarksomitted).TheofinterestdesignationbyanFBIagenthad6
significantimplicationsforadetainee.Ofinterestdetaineeswereplacedon7
theINSList,subjecttotheholduntilclearedpolicy,andrequiredFBIclearance8
ofanyconnectiontoterrorismbeforetheycouldbereleasedorremovedfromthe9
UnitedStates.DetaineeswhowerenotdesignatedofinteresttotheFBIs10
PENTTBOMinvestigationwerenotplacedontheINSList,didnotrequire11
clearancebytheFBI,andcouldbeprocessedaccordingtonormalINS12
procedures.Id.at40.13
Thearrestanddetentionmandatewasnotuniformlyimplemented14
throughoutthecountry.Specifically,theNewYorkFBIinvestigatedall15
PENTTBOMleadswithoutvettingtheinitialtipanddesignatedasofinterest16
anyonepickeduponaPENTTBOMlead...regardlessofthestrengthofthe17
evidenceortheoriginofthelead.Id.at41;seealsoCompl.4345.For18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page22 of 109
-
23
instance,daysafter9/11,NewYorkCitypolicestoppedthreeMiddleEastern1
meninManhattanonatrafficviolationandfoundplanstoapublicschoolinthe2
car.Thenextday,theiremployerconfirmedthatthemenhadtheplansbecause3
theywereperformingconstructionworkontheschool.Nonetheless,themen4
werearrestedanddetained.SeeOIGReportat42.Inanotherinstance,aMiddle5
EasternmanwasarrestedforillegallycrossingintotheUnitedStatesfrom6
Canadaoveraweekbefore9/11.Aftertheattacks,themanwasplacedonNew7
Yorksspecialinterestlisteventhoughadocumentinhisfile,datedSeptember8
26,2001,statedthatFBINewYorkhadnoknowledgeofthebasisforhis9
detention.Id.at64(internalquotationmarksomitted).10
Inmanycases,theNewYorkFBIdidnotevenattempttodetermine11
whetherthealienwaslinkedtoterrorism,seeid.at14,16,4142,47,anditnever12
labeledadetaineenointerestuntilaftertheclearanceprocesswascomplete,id.13
at18(emphasisadded).Thus,aliensencounteredandarrestedpursuanttoa14
PENTTBOMleadinNewYorkweredesignatedofinterest(orspecialinterest)15
andhelduntilthelocalfieldofficeconfirmedtheyhadnotiestoterrorism.Id.at16
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page23 of 109
-
24
14;seealsoid.at53.11TheresultwasthattheMDCPlaintiffsandotherssimilarly1
situatedinNewYorkwereheldattheMDCADMAXSHUasiftheymetthe2
nationalofinterestdesignation.Thesepracticesspecificallytheabsolutelack3
oftriageappeartohavebeenuniquetoNewYork.Seeid.at47,56.124
AtsomepointinOctober2001,INSrepresentativestotheSIOCWorking5
GrouplearnedthattheNewYorkFBIwasmaintainingaseparatelist(theNew6
YorkList)ofdetaineeswhohadnotbeenincludedinthenationalINSList.One7
explanationformaintainingaseparateNewYorkListwasthattheNewYorkFBI8
couldnotdetermineifthedetaineeshadanyconnectionwithterroristactivity.9
Id.at54.10
AfterINSHeadquarterslearnedoftheseparateNewYorkList,small11
groupsofseniorofficialsfromtheDAGsOffice,theFBI,andtheINSconvened12
onatleasttwooccasionsinOctoberandNovember2001tosuggesthowtodeal13
withthetwoseparatelistsofdetainees.IndiscussinghowtoaddresstheNew14
11TheOIGReportindicatesthat491ofthe762detaineeswerearrestedinNewYork.OIGReportat2122.However,theOIGReportdoesnotidentifyhowmanyNewYorkarrestsweretheresultoftheNewYorkFBIsefforts.12TheOIGReportpositsthattheNewYorkresponsedifferedfromtherestofthenation,atleastinpart,asaresultoftheNewYorkFBIandU.S.AttorneysOfficeslongtraditionofindependencefromtheirheadquartersinWashington,D.C.SeeOIGReportat54.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page24 of 109
-
25
YorkList,officialsattheINS,FBI,and[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,among1
otherthings,whetherthealiens[ontheNewYorkList]hadanynexusto2
terrorism.Id.at53.Nonetheless,thislistwasmergedwiththeINSListdueto3
theconcernthatabsentfurtherinvestigation,theFBIcouldunwittinglypermita4
dangerousindividualtoleavetheUnitedStates.Id.Thedecisiontomergethe5
listsensuredthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNewYorkListwouldremain6
detainedinthechallengedconditionsofconfinementasifthereweresome7
suspicionthatthoseindividualsweretiedtoterrorism,eventhoughnosuch8
suspicionexisted.9
V. TheIssuesonAppeal10
InaJanuary15,2013MemorandumandOrder,thedistrictcourtgranted11
inpartanddeniedinpartDefendantsmotionstodismisstheComplaint.The12
districtcourtdismissedallclaimsagainsttheDOJDefendants.AstotheMDC13
Defendants,thedistrictcourtdeniedtheirmotionstodismissPlaintiffs14
substantivedueprocessconditionsofconfinementclaim(Claim1);equal15
protectionconditionsofconfinementclaim(Claim2);freeexerciseclaim(Claim16
3);unreasonablestripsearchclaim(Claim6);andconspiracyclaimunder4217
U.S.C.1985(3)(Claim7).SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat324.TheMDC18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page25 of 109
-
26
Defendantsappealed,andPlaintiffscrossappealedthedismissaloftheclaims1
againsttheDOJDefendantsbasedonajudgmentthatwasenteredpursuantto2
Rule54(b)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.133
DISCUSSION144
I. PleadingStandard5
TosatisfyIqbalsplausibilitystandard,Plaintiffsmustplead[]factual6
contentthatallowsthecourttodrawthereasonableinferencethatthedefendant7
isliableforthemisconductalleged.556U.S.at678.Althoughplausibilityisnot8
aprobabilityrequirement,Plaintiffsmustallegefactsthatpermitmorethana9
sheerpossibilitythatadefendanthasactedunlawfully.Id.(internalquotation10
marksomitted).Factualallegationsthataremerelyconsistentwithunlawful11
conductdonotcreateareasonableinferenceofliability.Id.12
Moreover,[t]hreadbarerecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofaction,13
supportedbymereconclusorystatements,donotsuffice.Id.Wellpleaded14
factualallegations,incontrast,shouldbepresumedtrue,andwemustdetermine15
13Plaintiffshavenotappealedthedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheirinterferencewithcounselclaims(Claims4and5).14WereviewthedistrictcourtsdeterminationofDefendantsRule12(b)(6)motionstodismissdenovo.SeePapelinov.AlbanyColl.ofPharmacyofUnionUniv.,633F.3d81,88(2dCir.2011).
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page26 of 109
-
27
whethertheyplausiblygiverisetoanentitlementtorelief.Id.at679.1
Ultimately,everyplausibilitydeterminationisacontextspecifictaskthat2
requiresthereviewingcourttodrawonitsjudicialexperienceandcommon3
sense.Id.4
WiththeexceptionoftheSection1985conspiracyclaim,allofPlaintiffs5
claimsallegeconstitutionalviolationsbasedoninjuriesfirstrecognizedbythe6
SupremeCourtinBivens,403U.S.at388.Duringthecourseofthislitigation,the7
SupremeCourtmadeitclearinIqbalthatafederaltortfeasorsBivensliability8
cannotbepremisedonvicariousliability.556U.S.at676.Thus,Plaintiffsmust9
plausiblypleadthateachDefendant,throughtheofficialsownindividual10
actions,violatedPlaintiffsconstitutionalrights.Id.Inotherwords,Bivens11
reliefisavailableonlyagainstfederalofficialswhoarepersonallyliableforthe12
allegedconstitutionaltort.Id.at67677.Iqbalprecludesrelyingona13
supervisorsmereknowledgeofasubordinatesmentalstate(i.e.,discriminatory14
orpunitiveintent)toinferthatthesupervisorsharedthatintent.Id.at677.15
Knowingthatasubordinateengagedinaroguediscriminatoryorpunitiveactis16
notenough.Butthatisnottosaythatwherethesupervisorcondonesorratifies17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page27 of 109
-
28
asubordinatesdiscriminatoryorpunitiveactionsthesupervisorisfreeof1
Bivenssreach.Seeid.at683.2
II. AvailabilityofaBivensRemedyforPlaintiffsClaims3
UnliketheMDCDefendants,noneoftheDOJDefendantschallengethe4
existenceofaBivensremedyintheirbriefstothisCourt.WhiletheDOJ5
Defendantsdidraisethisissuebelow,andarerepresentedbyablecounselon6
appeal,theyhavechosentonotofferthatargumentnowasafurtherdefenseof7
theirvictoryinthedistrictcourt.However,asthereaderwilllaterdiscover,our8
dissentingcolleaguemakesmuchofthisdefense,raisingitashermainobjection9
toourresolutionoftheappeal.GiventheMDCDefendantsarguments,aswell10
asthedissentsdecisiontopresstheissue,legitimatelynotingthatadistrict11
courtsjudgmentcanbeaffirmedonanygroundsupportedbytherecord,12
DissentingOp.,postat7n.4(citingLotesCo.v.HonHaiPrecisionIndus.Co.,75313
F.3d395,413(2dCir.2014)),wethinkitappropriatetoexplainourconclusion14
thataBivensremedyisavailablefortheMDCPlaintiffspunitiveconditionsof15
confinementandstripsearchclaimsagainstboththeDOJandtheMDC16
Defendants.17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page28 of 109
-
29
InBivens,403U.S.at388,theSupremeCourtrecognizedforthefirsttime1
animpliedprivateactionfordamagesagainstfederalofficersallegedtohave2
violatedacitizensconstitutionalrights.Corr.Servs.Corp.v.Malesko,534U.S.3
61,66(2001).ThepurposeofBivensistodeterindividualfederalofficersfrom4
committingconstitutionalviolations.Id.at70.BecauseaBivensclaimhas5
judicialparentage,theSupremeCourthaswarnedthattheBivensremedyisan6
extraordinarythingthatshouldrarelyifeverbeappliedinnewcontexts.Arar7
v.Ashcroft,585F.3d559,571(2dCir.2009)(enbanc)(internalquotationmarks8
omitted).Thus,aBivensremedyisnotavailableforallwhoallegeinjuryfroma9
federalofficersviolationoftheirconstitutionalrights.10
InArar,weoutlinedatwostepprocessfordeterminingwhetheraBivens11
remedyisavailable.First,thecourtmustdeterminewhethertheunderlying12
claimsextendBivensintoanewcontext.Id.at572.If,andonlyif,theanswer13
tothisfirststepisyes,thecourtmustthenconsider(a)whetherthereisan14
alternativeremedialschemeavailabletotheplaintiff,and,evenifthereisnot,15
(b)whetherspecialfactorscounselhesitationincreatingaBivensremedy.Id.16
(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted).AsArarnoted,caselaw17
provideslimitedguidanceregardinghowtodeterminewhetheraclaimpresents18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page29 of 109
-
30
anewcontextforBivenspurposes.Thus,[w]econstrue[d]thewordcontextas1
itiscommonlyusedinlaw:toreflectapotentiallyrecurringscenariothathas2
similarlegalandfactualcomponents.Id.3
Determiningthecontextofaclaimcanbetricky.TheMDCDefendants4
contendthatthecontextofPlaintiffsclaimsisthenationsresponsetoan5
unprecedentedterroristattack.ShermanBr.45.TheDOJDefendantsmadea6
similarargumentbeforethedistrictcourtinanearlierroundofthislitigation.7
SeeTurkmenI,2006WL1662663,at*30.TheMDCDefendants,andthedissent8
onbehalfoftheDOJDefendants,contendthatArarsupportsthisview.Butif9
thatwerethecase,thenwhydidArartakepainstonotethatthecontextof10
Ararsclaimswasnotthenationscontinuingresponsetoterrorism,buttheacts11
offederalofficialsincarryingoutArarsextraordinaryrendition?585F.3dat12
572.Welookedtoboththerightsinjuredandthemechanismoftheinjuryto13
determinethecontextofArarsclaims.InrejectingtheavailabilityofaBivens14
remedy,wefocusedonthemechanismofhisinjury:extraordinaryrenditiona15
distinctphenomenonininternationallawanddeterminedthispresenteda16
newcontextforBivensbasedclaims.Id.Onlyuponconcludingthat17
extraordinaryrenditionpresentedanewcontextdidweexaminethepolicy18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page30 of 109
-
31
concernsandcompetingremedialmeasuresavailabletoArar.Inourview,1
settingthecontextoftheBivensclaimshereasthenationalresponseinthewake2
of9/11conflatesthetwostepprocessdictatedbythisCourtinArar.Thereasons3
whyPlaintiffswereheldattheMDCasiftheyweresuspectedofterrorismdo4
notpresentthecontextoftheirconfinementjustasthereasonforArars5
extraordinaryrenditiondidnotpresentthecontextofhisclaim.Withoutdoubt,6
9/11presentedunrivaledchallengesandsevereexigenciesbutthatdoesnot7
changethecontextofPlaintiffsclaims.[M]ostoftherightsthatthe8
Plaintiff[s]contend[]wereviolateddonotvarywithsurroundingcircumstances,9
suchastherightnottobesubjectedtoneedlesslyharshconditionsof10
confinement,therighttobefreefromtheuseofexcessiveforce,andtherightnot11
tobesubjectedtoethnicorreligiousdiscrimination.Thestrengthofoursystem12
ofconstitutionalrightsderivesfromthesteadfastprotectionofthoserightsin13
bothnormalandunusualtimes.Iqbalv.Hasty(Hasty),490F.3d143,159(2dCir.14
2007),revdonothergroundssubnom.Iqbal,556U.S.662.15
Thus,wethinkitplainthattheMDCPlaintiffsconditionsofconfinement16
claimsaresetinthefollowingcontext:federaldetaineePlaintiffs,housedina17
federalfacility,allegethatindividualfederalofficerssubjectedthemtopunitive18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page31 of 109
-
32
conditions.Thiscontexttakesaccountofboththerightsinjured(here,1
substantivedueprocessandequalprotectionrights)15andthemechanismof2
injury(punitiveconditionswithoutsufficientcause).Theclaimthatindividual3
officersviolateddetaineesconstitutionalrightsbysubjectingthemtoharsh4
treatmentwithimpermissibleintentorwithoutsufficientcausestandsfirmly5
withinafamiliarBivenscontext.BoththeSupremeCourtandthisCircuithave6
recognizedaBivensremedyforconstitutionalchallengestoconditionsof7
confinement.InCarlsonv.Green,446U.S.14,1720(1980),theSupremeCourt8
recognizedanimpliedremedyfortheplaintiffsclaimalleginganEighth9
Amendmentviolationforprisonermistreatment.Furthermore,inMalesko,in10
refusingtoextendaBivensremedytoclaimsagainstprivatecorporations11
housingfederaldetainees,theSupremeCourtobservedindictathat,whileno12
15TherightsinjuredcomponentofPlaintiffsclaimsfallwithinarecognizedBivenscontext.ThisCircuithaspresumedtheavailabilityofaBivensremedyforsubstantivedueprocessclaimsinseveralcases.SeeArar,585F.3dat598(Sack,J.,dissenting)(citingcases).Inaddition,theSupremeCourthasacknowledgedtheavailabilityofaBivensactiontoredressaviolationoftheequalprotectioncomponentoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendment.Iqbal,556U.S.at675(citingDavisv.Passman,442U.S.228(1979)).AndwhileitistruethattheSupremeCourthassubsequentlydeclinedtoextendDavistootheremploymentdiscriminationclaims,suchasinChappellv.Wallace,462U.S.296,30004(1983),theCourtsanalysiswasfocusedonthespecialnatureoftheemployeremployeerelationshipinthemilitaryor,inotherwords,themechanismofinjury.Here,wherethemechanismofinjuryisalsofamiliar,aBivensremedyisplainlyavailable.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page32 of 109
-
33
claimwasavailableagainsttheprivatecorporation,afederalprisonerwouldhave1
aremedyagainstfederalofficialsforconstitutionalclaims.534U.S.at72.Ifa2
federalprisonerinaBOPfacilityallegesaconstitutionaldeprivation,hemay3
bringaBivensclaimagainsttheoffendingindividualofficer,subjecttothe4
defenseofqualifiedimmunity.Id.TheCourtwentontorecognizethatthe5
prisonermaynotbringaBivensclaimagainsttheofficersemployer,theUnited6
States,ortheBOP.Id.TheMDCPlaintiffsclaimshereplainlyfollowMaleskos7
guidance:theclaimsareraisedagainsttheindividualofficers,bothattheDOJ8
andtheMDC,whowereresponsibleforsubjectingthePlaintiffstopunitive9
conditionsofconfinement.10
TheSecondCircuithasalsorecognizedtheavailabilityofBivensrelieffor11
federalprisonershousedinfederalfacilitiesbringingclaimsagainstindividual12
federalofficers.InThomasv.Ashcroft,470F.3d491,497(2dCir.2006),thisCourt13
reversedthedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheprisonerplaintiffsBivensclaimfor14
violationofhisdueprocessrightsagainstsupervisoryprisonofficials.Seealso15
Tellierv.Fields,280F.3d69,8083(2dCir.2000)(recognizingaBivensremedyfor16
aclaimofdeprivationofproceduraldueprocessbroughtbyafederalprisoner17
againstfederalprisonofficials).Furthermore,inHasty,whereweconsidered18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page33 of 109
-
34
claimsnearlyidenticaltothoseatissueinthiscase,wedidnotsomuchashint1
eitherthataBivensremedywasunavailableorthatitsavailabilitywould2
constituteanunwarrantedextensionoftheBivensdoctrine.Arar,585F.3dat3
597(Sack,J.,dissenting)(discussingHasty,490F.3dat17778).4
OursistercircuitshavealsopermittedBivensclaimsforunconstitutional5
conditionsofconfinement.InCalev.Johnson,861F.2d943,947(6thCir.1988),6
abrogatedonothergroundsbyThaddeusXv.Blatter,175F.3d378(6thCir.1999)(en7
banc),theSixthCircuitheldthatfederalcourtshavethejurisdictionalauthority8
toentertainaBivensactionbroughtbyafederalprisoner,allegingviolationsof9
hisrighttosubstantivedueprocess.TheThirdCircuithasalsopermitteda10
federalinmatetobringacivilrightsactionagainstprisonofficials.SeeBistrianv.11
Levi,696F.3d352,37275(3dCir.2012)(assumingavailabilityofaBivensremedy12
forplaintiffsFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessandotherconstitutional13
claimschallenginghisconditionsofconfinement).14
Notwithstandingthepersuasiveprecedentsuggestingtheavailabilityofa15
BivensremedyfortheMDCPlaintiffsconditionsofconfinementclaims,the16
MDCDefendants,andourdissentingcolleague,arguethattheMDCPlaintiffs17
claimspresentanewBivenscontextbecausethePlaintiffsareillegalaliens.But18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page34 of 109
-
35
becausetheMDCPlaintiffsrighttobefreefrompunitiveconditionsof1
confinementiscoextensivewiththatofacitizen,theirunlawfulpresenceinthe2
UnitedStatesatthetimeofthechallengedconfinementdoesnotplacetheir3
standardmistreatmentclaimintoanewcontext.Indeed,theFifthCircuithas4
recognizedaBivensclaimraisedbyaMexicannationalforviolationsofher5
FourthandFifthAmendmentrightstobefreefromfalseimprisonmentandthe6
useofexcessiveforcebylawenforcementpersonnel.SeeMartinezAguerov.7
Gonzalez,459F.3d618,625(5thCir.2006).TheNinthCircuithasalsorecognized8
aBivensclaimfordueprocessviolationsthatoccurredduringanillegalalien9
plaintiffsdetention.SeePapav.UnitedStates,281F.3d1004,101011(9thCir.10
2002).16Thus,weconcludethataBivensremedyisavailableforthePlaintiffs11
substantivedueprocessandequalprotectionconditionsofconfinementclaims.12
OurunderstandingofBivensandthisCourtsdecisioninArardonot13
howeversuggesttheavailabilityofaBivensremedyforthePlaintiffsfree14
exerciseclaim.ThatclaimthatDefendantsdeliberatelyinterferedwith15
16WenotethattheNinthCircuithasdeclinedtoprovideillegalalienswithanimpliedBivensremedyforunlawfuldetentionduringdeportationproceedings.Mirmehdiv.UnitedStates,689F.3d975,98183(9thCir.2012).Ofcourse,thatdecisionisplainlyinappositeherewheretheMDCPlaintiffsdonotchallengethefactthattheyweredetained,butrathertheconditionsinwhichtheyweredetained.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page35 of 109
-
36
Plaintiffsreligiouspracticesby:(1)denyingthemtimelyaccesstocopiesofthe1
Koran;(2)denyingthemHalalfood;and(3)failingtostopMDCstafffrom2
interferingwithPlaintiffsprayersdoesnotfallwithinafamiliarBivenscontext.3
Here,itistherightinjuredPlaintiffsfreeexerciserightandnotthe4
mechanismofinjurythatplacesPlaintiffsclaimsinanewBivenscontext.5
Indeed,theSupremeCourthasnotfoundanimplieddamagesremedyunder6
theFreeExerciseClauseandhasdeclinedtoextendBivenstoaclaimsounding7
intheFirstAmendment.Iqbal,556U.S.at675(citingBushv.Lucas,462U.S.3678
(1983)).Accordingly,weagreewiththeMDCDefendantsthatPlaintiffsfree9
exerciseclaimshouldhavebeendismissed.10
ButtheMDCPlaintiffsclaimthattheyweresubjectedtounlawfulstrip11
searchesfallswithinanestablishedBivenscontext:federaldetaineeplaintiffs,12
housedinafederalfacility,allegethatindividualfederalofficerssubjectedthem13
tounreasonablesearchesinviolationoftheFourthAmendment.TheMDC14
DefendantsfailtopersuasivelyexplainwhyrecognizingtheMDCPlaintiffs15
unlawfulstripsearchclaimwouldextendBivenstoanewcontext.Indeed,the16
rightviolatedcertainlyfallswithinarecognizedBivenscontext:theFourth17
AmendmentisatthecoreoftheBivensjurisprudence,asBivensitselfconcerneda18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page36 of 109
-
37
FourthAmendmentclaim.InBivens,theplaintiffbroughtaFourthAmendment1
claimforthedefendantsuseofunreasonableforcewithoutprobablecause,2
resultingintheplaintiffsunlawfularrest.403U.S.at38990;seealsoGrohv.3
Ramirez,540U.S.551,555(2004)(recognizingtheavailabilityofaBivensremedy4
foraFourthAmendmentclaimofanunreasonablesearch,asaresultofafacially5
invalidwarrant).ThisCircuithasalsopermittedBivensreliefforFourth6
Amendmentclaimsinvolvingunreasonablesearches.See,e.g.,Castrov.United7
States,34F.3d106,107(2dCir.1994).Andthemechanismoftheviolationhere,8
anunreasonablesearchperformedbyaprisonofficialhasalsobeenrecognized9
bythisCircuit.Indeed,inArar,westatedthat[i]nthesmallnumberofcontexts10
inwhichcourtshaveimpliedaBivensremedy,ithasoftenbeeneasytoidentify11
boththelinebetweenconstitutionalandunconstitutionalconduct,andthe12
alternativecoursewhichofficersshouldhavepursued....[T]heimmigration13
officerwhosubjectedanalientomultiplestripsearcheswithoutcauseshould14
haveleftthealieninhisclothes.585F.3dat580;seealsoHasty,490F.3dat17015
73(assumingtheexistenceofaBivensremedytochallengestripsearchesunder16
theFourthAmendment).17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page37 of 109
-
38
Accordingly,weconcludethataBivensremedyisavailableforPlaintiffs1
conditionsofconfinementclaims,underboththeDueProcessandEqual2
ProtectionClausesoftheFifthAmendment,andFourthAmendment3
unreasonableandpunitivestripsearchesclaim.17However,Plaintiffsfree4
exerciseclaimwouldrequireextendingBivenstoanewcontext,amovewe5
declinetomakeabsentguidancefromtheSupremeCourt.6
III. Claim1: SubstantiveDueProcessConditionsofConfinement7
TheMDCPlaintiffsallegethattheharshconditionsofconfinementinthe8
MDCviolatedtheirFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessrightsandthatall9
Defendantsareliableforthisharm.18Plaintiffspresentdistincttheoriesof10
liabilityastotheDOJandMDCDefendants.11
A. ApplicableLegalStandard12
TheFifthAmendmentsDueProcessClauseforbidssubjectingpretrial13
detaineestopunitiverestrictionsorconditions.SeeBellv.Wolfish(Wolfish),44114
17BecauseweconcludethatPlaintiffssubstantivedueprocess,equalprotection,andunreasonablepunitivestripsearchesclaimsdonotextendBivenstoanewcontext,weneednotaddresswhetherthereisanalternativeremedialschemeavailabletotheplaintifforwhetherspecialfactorscounselhesitationincreatingaBivensremedy.Arar,585F.3dat572(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted).18TurkmenandSachdeva,thePassaicPlaintiffs,donotbringasubstantivedueprocessconditionsofconfinementclaimorunreasonablestripsearchclaim(Claims1and6).
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page38 of 109
-
39
U.S.520,535&n.16(1979).19PlaintiffsmustplausiblypleadthatDefendants,(1)1
withpunitiveintent,(2)personallyengagedinconductthatcausedthe2
challengedconditionsofconfinement.Seeid.at538;seealsoIqbal,556U.S.at6763
77.Absentanexpressedintenttopunish,Wolfish,441U.S.at538,wemayonly4
inferthatDefendantsactedwithpunitiveintentifthechallengedconditions5
werenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoalif[theywere]arbitraryor6
purposeless,id.at539.7
B. TheDOJDefendants8
WhiletheDOJDefendantsdonotraiseanoBivensclaimdefense,theydo9
forcefullycontestliabilityherewithpowerfulpostIqbalassertionsthatthe10
formerAttorneyGeneralandFBIDirectordidnotthemselvesrequireorspecify11
anyoftheparticularconditionssetforthinthecomplaint.Andtheycannotbe12
heldliableonwhatamountstoatheoryofrespondeatsuperiorfortheactionsof13
otherswhomayhaveimposedthoseconditions.Ashcroft&MuellerBr.10.14
TheycontendthatbecausetheformerAttorneyGeneralsinitialdetentionorder15
wasconstitutional,havingbeenapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinIqbal,theDOJ1619Thepartieshavenotarguedforadifferentstandardinthisappeal.Accordingly,wedonotaddresswhethertherightsofcivilimmigrationdetaineesshouldbegovernedbyastandardthatisevenmoreprotectivethanthestandardthatappliestopretrialcriminaldetainees.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page39 of 109
-
40
Defendantswereentitledtopresumethatthefaciallyconstitutionalpolicy1
wouldinturnbeimplementedlawfully....Id.at9.Weagree...toapoint.2
TheMDCPlaintiffsconcedethattheDOJDefendantsdidnotcreatethe3
particularconditionsinquestion.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat326n.4;see4
alsoOIGReportat19,11213(reportingthat,atleastinitially,BOPofficials5
determinedtheconditionsunderwhichdetaineeswouldbeheld,without6
directionfromtheFBIorelsewhere).TheMDCPlaintiffssimilarlyfailtoplead7
thatAshcroftsinitialarrestanddetentionmandaterequiredsubordinatesto8
applyexcessivelyrestrictiveconditionstocivildetaineesagainstwhomthe9
governmentlackedindividualizedsuspicionofterrorism.Giventhemandates10
facialvalidity,theDOJDefendantshadarighttopresumethatsubordinates11
wouldcarryitoutinaconstitutionalmanner.SeeAlJundiv.EstateofRockefeller,12
885F.2d1060,106566(2dCir.1989).Butthatisnottheendofthematter.13
TheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantswereaware14
thatillegalalienswerebeingdetainedinpunitiveconditionsofconfinementin15
NewYorkandfurtherknewthattherewasnosuggestionthatthosedetainees16
weretiedtoterrorismexceptforthefactthattheywere,orwereperceivedtobe,17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page40 of 109
-
41
AraborMuslim.20TheMDCPlaintiffsfurtherallegethatwhileknowingthese1
facts,theDOJDefendantswereresponsibleforadecisiontomergetheNewYork2
ListwiththenationalINSList,whichcontainedthenamesofdetaineeswhose3
detentionwasdependentnotonlyontheirillegalimmigrantstatusandtheir4
perceivedAraborMuslimaffiliation,butalsoasuspicionthattheywere5
connectedtoterroristactivities.ThemergerensuredthattheMDCPlaintiffs6
wouldcontinuetobeconfinedinpunitiveconditions.Thisissufficienttoplead7
aFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessviolation.21Giventhelackof820Thedissentcountersthat[t]hisisnotapparentintherecord,citingPlaintiffBajracharyasvideotapingofabuildinginQueensasevidenceofthatPlaintiffspossibletietoterrorism.DissentingOp.,postat43n.28.Thedissentmakesnomention,ofcourse,ofPlaintiffKhalifa,whowastoldthattheFBIwasonlyinterestedinhisroommates,butwhowasarrestedandthendetainedintheADMAXSHUanyway,Compl.197;orofPlaintiffMehmood,whowasarrestedanddetainedintheADMAXSHUinplaceofhiswife,inwhomtheFBIhadapparentlyexpressedinterest,butwhowasstillbreastfeedingtheirson,id.159.ThedissentfurtherclaimsthatdetaineeswerenotsenttotheADMAXSHUbasedontheirperceivedraceorreligion,butastheOIGReportstatesbasedonwhethertheyweredesignatedofhighinteresttothePENTTBOMinvestigation.DissentingOp.,postat44n.28(citingOIGReportat18,111).But,asthedissentconcedes,id.,PlaintiffswellpleadedComplaintspecificallycontradictsthispoint:theMDCPlaintiffsweredetainedintheADMAXSHUeventhoughtheyhadnotbeenclassifiedhighinterest,Compl.4.21Weacknowledge,asthedissentpointsout,thattheMDCPlaintiffsdidnotadvancethelistsmergertheorybeforethisCourtorthedistrictcourt.DissentingOp.,postat43n.28.Rather,theystructuredtheComplainttochallengeAshcroftsarrestanddetentionmandateasinitiallyformulatedandgenerallyapplied.InexaminingtheComplaintssufficiency,wehavebeenclearthatthepleadingsareinadequatetochallengethevalidityofthepolicyabinitio,butdostateaclaimwithregardtothemergerdecision,aneventthatPlaintiffsexplicitlyreferenceintheComplaint.See
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page41 of 109
-
42
individualizedsuspicion,thedecisiontomergethelistswasnotreasonably1
relatedtoalegitimategoal.SeeWolfish,441U.S.at539.Theonlyreasonwhy2
theMDCPlaintiffswereheldasiftheyweresuspectedofterrorismwasbecause3
theywere,orappearedtobe,AraborMuslim.Weconcludethatthisplausibly4
pleadspunitiveintent.Id.5
1. PunitiveConditionsofConfinement6
ContrarytothedistrictcourtsconclusionthatPlaintiffsfailedtoallege7
thattheDOJ[D]efendantswereevenawareof[the]conditions,TurkmenIII,9158
F.Supp.2dat340,theComplaintandtheOIGReporteachcontainallegationsof9
theDOJDefendantsknowledgeofthechallengedconditions.Plaintiffsallege,10
interalia,thatMuellerranthe9/11investigationoutofFBIHeadquarters;and11
thatAshcroft,Mueller[,]andZiglarreceiveddetaileddailyreportsofthearrests12
anddetentions,Compl.47;seealsoid.6365.13
TheOIGReportmakesplaintheplausibilityofPlaintiffsallegations.The14
[DOJ]wasawareoftheBOPsdecisiontohousetheSeptember11detaineesin15
highsecuritysectionsinvariousBOPfacilities.OIGReportat19.TheDeputy16
ChiefofStafftoAshcrofttoldtheOIGthatanallegationofmistreatmentwas17Compl.47;Pls.Br.38.SufficiencyanalysisrequiresacarefulparsingoftheComplaintandthatisallthathasoccurredhere.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page42 of 109
-
43
calledtotheAttorneyGeneralsattention.Id.at20.AndBOPDirectorKathy1
HawkSawyerstatedthatintheweeksfollowing9/11,theDeputyAttorney2
GeneralsChiefofStaffandthePrincipalAssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneral3
calledher...withconcernsaboutdetaineesabilitytocommunicatebothwith4
thoseoutsidethefacilityandwithotherinmates,id.at112,whichshesaid5
confirmedforherthatthedecisiontohousedetaineesintherestrictive6
conditionsoftheADMAXSHUwasappropriate,id.at112113.Thissupports7
thereasonableinferencethatnotonlywasAshcroftsofficeawareofsomeofthe8
conditionsimposed,butaffirmativelysupportedthem.Seealsoid.at113(DOJ9
officialstoldSawyertotake[BOP]policiestotheirlegallimit).22Furthermore,10
theOIGReportalsomakesclearthatconditionsintheADMAXSHUbeganto11
22Thedissentattemptstominimizetheforceofthesecomments,claimingthatcommunicationsaboutaconditionofconfinementthatwasliftedbeforethemergerdecisioncannotsupportaninferenceastowhattheDOJDefendantsknewabouttheconditionsintheADMAXSHU.DissentingOp.,postat5657.Simplyput,wedisagree.Thefactremainsthataconditionofconfinement,lesssevereandabusivethantheconditionsatissuehere,garneredtheattentionofseniorofficials;itstandstoreasonthatconditionsthatkeptdetaineesintheircellsfortwentythreehoursaday,deniedthemsleepbybrightlights,andinvolvedexcessivestripsearchesandphysicalabuse,wouldhavecometotheDOJDefendantsattention.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page43 of 109
-
44
receivemediaattentionsoonafterdetentionsbegan,seeid.at2,5;23thus,itseems1
implausiblethatthepublicsconcernsdidnotreachtheDOJDefendantsdesks.2
Ofcourse,wecannotsayforcertainthatdailyreportsgiventoAshcroft3
andMuellerdetailedtheconditionsattheADMAXSHUorthatthedaily4
meetingsoftheSIOCWorkingGroup(containingrepresentativesfromeachof5
theDOJDefendantsoffices)discussedthoseconditions.Butonreviewofa6
motiontodismiss,Plaintiffsneednotprovetheirallegations;theymustplausibly7
pleadthem.Ataminimum,asteadystreamofinformationregardingthe8
challengedconditionsflowedbetweentheBOPandseniorDOJofficials.Given9
theMDCPlaintiffsallegations,themediacoverageofconditionsattheMDC,10
andtheDOJDefendantsannouncedcentralrolesinPENTTBOM,itseemstous11
plausiblethatinformationconcerningconditionsattheMDC,whichheldeighty12
fourofthe9/11detainees,reachedtheDOJDefendants.2413
23See,e.g.,NeilA.Lewis,ANationChallenged:TheDetainees;DetentionsAfterAttacksPass1,000,U.S.Says,N.Y.TIMES,Oct.30,2001,availableathttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/us/anationchallengedthedetaineesdetentionsafterattackspass1000ussays.html(citingcommonnewsreportsofabuseinvolv[ing]mistreatmentofprisonersofMiddleEasternbackgroundatjails).24Furthermore,theOIGreportswereissuedpursuanttotheOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralsresponsibilitiesundertheUSAPATRIOTAct,whichwasenactedonOctober26,2001.SeeOIGReportat3n.6.ThePATRIOTAct,Section1001,reads:TheInspectorGeneraloftheDepartmentofJusticeshalldesignateoneofficialwhoshall(1)reviewinformationandreceivecomplaintsallegingabusesofcivilrightsandcivil
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page44 of 109
-
45
2. LackofIndividualizedSuspicion1
TheMDCPlaintiffsalsoplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantswere2
awarethattheFBIhadnotdevelopedanyconnectionbetweensomeofthe3
detaineesandterroristactivities.TheComplaintandOIGReportbothmake4
clearthattheNewYorkFBIarrestedalloutofstatusaliensencountered5
evencoincidentallyinthecourseofinvestigatingaPENTTBOMlead.OIG6
Reportat4142,6970.Thesearresteesweredeemedofinterestforpurposes7
oftheholduntilclearedpolicy,regardlessofthestrengthoftheevidenceorthe8
originofthelead.Id.at41.Thosedeemedofhighinterestweresenttothe9
MDCsADMAXSHU,id.at111,buttherewaslittleconsistencyorprecisionto10
theprocessthatresultedindetaineesbeinglabeledhighinterest,id.at158.2511
libertiesbyemployeesandofficialsoftheDepartmentofJustice.PATRIOTAct,Pub.L.No.10756,1001,115Stat.272(2001).OnOctober30,2001,theOIGreviewedanewspaperarticleinwhichaSeptember11detaineeallegedhewasphysicallyabusedwhenhearrivedattheMDConOctober4,2001.Basedontheallegationsinthearticle,theOIGsInvestigationsDivisioninitiatedaninvestigationintothematter.OIGReportat144.ItseemstousmostplausiblethatiftheOIGwhoisundertheauthority,direction,andcontroloftheAttorneyGeneralwithrespecttoauditsorinvestigations,5U.S.C.App.38E(a)(1)wasawareofthechallengedconditionsattheMDC,theDOJDefendantswereaswell.25EvensomedetaineeswhowerenotlabeledhighinterestwerenonethelesssenttotheMDCsADMAXSHU.Forexample,Abbasi,Bajracharya,Mehmood,andKhalifa[]wereplacedintheADMAXSHUeventhoughtheyhadnotbeenclassifiedhighinterestanddespitetheabsenceofanyinformationindicatingtheyweredangerousorinvolvedinterrorism,oranyotherlegitimatereasonforsuchtreatment.Compl.4.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page45 of 109
-
46
EveniftheDOJDefendantswerenotinitiallyawareofthispractice,the1
ComplaintandOIGreportssupportthereasonableinferencethatAshcroftand2
Muellerlearnedofitwithinweeksof9/11.TheComplaintclearlyallegesthatthe3
DOJDefendantsagreedthatindividualsforwhomtheFBIcouldonlyarticulate4
animmigrationlawviolationasareasonfordetentionandforwhomtheFBI5
hadnotdevelopedanyreliabletietoterrorismwouldcontinuetobetreatedas6
iftheFBIhadreasontobelievethedetaineeshadtiestoterroristactivity.Compl.7
67.PlaintiffspointtothedetaileddailyreportsthattheDOJDefendants8
receivedregardingarrestsanddetentionsandallegethattheDOJDefendants9
wereawarethattheFBIhadnoinformationtyingPlaintiffsandclassmembers10
toterrorismpriortotreatingthemasofinteresttothePENTTBOM11
investigation.Id.47.Indeed,theyclaimthatAshcroft,inparticular,insisted12
onregular,detailedreportingonarrests;theyallegethathereceivedadaily13
AttorneyGeneralsReportonpersonsarrested.Id.63.Theyfurtherallege14
thatitwasZiglarwhowasultimatelyresponsibleforprovidingmuchofthis15
informationwhichhegleanedfromhistwicedailybriefingswithhisstaff16
regardingthe9/11detentionstoAshcroft,indicatingthathetoowasawareof17
thelackofindividualizedsuspicion.Id.64.18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page46 of 109
-
47
Onceagain,theOIGreportsalsosupporttheMDCPlaintiffsallegation1
thattheDOJDefendantsbecameawareofthelackofindividualizedsuspicion2
forsomedetaineesheldinthechallengedconditionsofconfinement.TheOIG3
Reportstatesthat[a]varietyofINS,FBI,and[DOJ]officialswhoworkedon4
the[]September11detaineecasestoldtheOIGthatitsoonbecameevidentthat5
manyofthepeoplearrestedduringthePENTTBOMinvestigationmightnot6
haveanexustoterrorism.OIGReportat45.OtherDOJofficialsalsostated7
thatitsoonbecameclearthatonlysomeofthedetaineeswereofgenuine8
investigativeinterestasopposedtoaliensidentifiedbytheFBIasofinterest9
forwhomtheFBIhadnosuspicionofaconnectiontotheattacksorterrorismin10
general.Id.at47.11
TheOIGReportsupportsthereasonableinferencethatthisinformation,12
knownbyotherDOJofficials,cametotheattentionoftheDOJDefendants.In13
particular,theOIGReportspecifiesthatAshcroftandMuellerwereinvolvedina14
continuousmeetingforthefirstfewmonthsafter9/11,atwhichtheissueof15
holdingaliensuntiltheywereclearedwasdiscussed.Id.at3940.16
Furthermore,theOIGReportmakesclearthattheSIOCWorkingGroup,17
containingrepresentativesfromtheofficesofeachoftheDOJDefendants,was18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page47 of 109
-
48
awareofthelackofevidencetyingdetaineestoterrorism.Id.at5357.Aswe1
havealreadynoted,theOIGReportdetailshowatsomepointinOctober2001,2
theSIOCWorkingGrouplearnedabouttheNewYorkListandthatofficialsat3
theINS,FBI,and[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,amongotherthings,whetherthe4
alienshadanynexustoterrorism.Id.at53.Clearlythiscreatedamajor5
problemfortheDOJ.TheexistenceoftheNewYorkListsuddenlypresentedthe6
possibilityofmorethandoublingthenumberofdetaineessubjecttothehold7
untilclearedpolicy.26ItseemsquiteplausiblethatDOJofficialswouldconfer8
withtheAttorneyGeneralandtheDirectoroftheFBI(itwas,afterall,hisagents9
whowerearrestingoutofstatusArabandMuslimaliensandholdingthemasif10
theywereofinterestwithoutanysuspicionofterroristconnections)aboutthe11
problemoftheNewYorkListandthehundredsofdetaineespickedupin12
contraventionofAshcroftsstatedpolicy.Indeed,itseemstousimplausiblethey13
didnot.Finally,theOIGReportonceagainmakesclearthatmediareports14
regardingallegationsofmistreatmentofdetaineesallegedthatdetainees15
26InOctoberandNovemberof2001,theNewYorkListcontainedapproximately300detaineeswhiletheINSListfortherestofthenationcontainedonly200detainees.OIGReportat54.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page48 of 109
-
49
remainedindetentioneventhoughtheyhadnoinvolvementinterrorism.Id.at1
2,5.2
3. TheDecisiontoMergetheLists3
Plaintiffsplausiblypleadthat,despitetheDOJDefendantsknowledgeof4
theconditionsattheADMAXSHUandthelackofanyformofverifiedsuspicion5
foralargenumberofthosedetaineesontheNewYorkList,Ashcroftapproved,6
oratleastendorsed,adecisiontomergetheNewYorkList.TheMDCPlaintiffs7
contendthathedidsonotwithstandingvocaloppositionfromvariousinternal8
sources.TheComplaintclearlyallegesthat[a]gainstsignificantinternal9
criticismfromINSagentsandotherfederalemployeesinvolvedinthesweeps,10
Ashcroftorderedthat,despiteacompletelackofanyinformationorastatement11
ofFBIinterest,allsuchPlaintiffsandclassmembers[ontheNewYorkList]be12
detaineduntilclearedandotherwisetreatedasofinterest.Compl.47.By13
takingthisaction,AshcroftensuredthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNew14
YorkListwouldbeplacedin,orremaindetainedin,thechallengedconditionsof15
confinement.16
Ourdissentingcolleaguelevelsaconcernastotheimportofthemergerof17
thelistsandcountersthatnothingintheOIGreportsconfirmsAshcrofts18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page49 of 109
-
50
personalknowledgeofthecorrelationbetweenthemergerofthelistsandthe1
lackofindividualizedsuspicionastotheMDCPlaintiffs.Thedissentcontends2
that,becausePlaintiffsallegationsarenotbasedonpersonalknowledge,thereis3
nofactualbasisintherecordforthem.DissentingOp.,postat45.Trueenough4
thatAshcroftdidnotacknowledgethathewasawareofthemergerofthelists5
anditsimplicationfortheMDCPlaintiffs,nordidhetakeresponsibilityforit.6
ButthenagainareviewoftheOIGReportgivesnoindicationthatanybody7
askedhim.8
TheabsenceofaninquirytotheformerAttorneyGeneralisnotacriticism9
oftheOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralsmethods,butasimplerecognitionofa10
factthatpointsoutakeydifferencebetweenourviewoftheOIGreportsand11
thatofthedissent.Forus,theOIGreportsprovidecontextfortheallegationsof12
theComplaint.Seesupranote6.However,itwouldbeamistaketothinkofthe13
OIGreportsasarepositoryofallrelevantfactsofthattroubledtime;butthatis14
exactlywhatthedissentseemsinclinedtodo.Thedissentmeasuresplausibility15
bytheabsenceorpresenceoffactfindingsintheOIGreports.Thus,forthe16
dissent,thefactthattheAttorneyGeneralmaynothavebeenquestionedis17
confirmationthatheknewnothing.Thereportsmakenosuchassertion.18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page50 of 109
-
51
ItmaybethatfollowingdiscoveryitwillbeclearthatAshcroftwasnot1
responsibleforthemergerdecision(norwasMuellerorZiglar),butthatisnot2
thequestionatthepleadingstage.ThequestioniswhethertheMDCPlaintiffs3
plausiblypleadthatAshcroftwasresponsible.Giventheimportanceofthe4
mergeranditsimplicationsforhowhislawfuloriginalorderwasbeingcarried5
out,wethinktheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblyallegethathewas.6
Indeed,theOIGReportsupportstheMDCPlaintiffsallegationthat7
Ashcroftwasresponsibleforthemergerdecision.AnincidentatoneoftheNew8
YorkListmeetingsprovidesadditionalcontextthatsupportsthatallegation.At9
theNovember2,2001meeting,thegroupdiscussedthenecessityofCIAchecks,10
oftenaprerequisitetoa9/11detaineesreleasefromdetention.OIGReportat55.11
Inresponse,StuartLevey,theAssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneralresponsiblefor12
oversightofimmigrationissues,statedthathehadtocheckbefore13
communicatingadecisiononwhetheranydetaineescouldbereleasedwithout14
theCIAcheck.Id.at56.Thisresponsecouldreasonablyindicate(a)alackof15
authoritytorespondtothequestion,or(b)thatLeveywantedtoconsiderother16
viewsbeforemakingthedecision.Becauseeitherisplausible,itisirrelevantthat17
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page51 of 109
-
52
onlyinference(a)supportstheconclusionthatLeveycouldnotanswerthe1
questiononhisownandhadtotakeittomoreseniorofficials.272
Furthermore,inlateNovember2001,whentheINSChiefofStaff3
approachedLeveyabouttheCIAcheckpolicy,Leveysaidthathedidnotfeel4
comfortablemakingthedecisionabout[the]requesttochangetheCIAcheck5
policywithoutadditionalinput.Id.at62.ItseemstousthatifLeveywasnot6
comfortablechangingtheCIAcheckpolicywithoutinputfrommoresenior7
officials,hecertainlywouldnothavebeencomfortablemakingthedecisionon8
hisowntodoublethenumberofdetaineessubjecttothatpolicyinthefirst9
instance.2810
27TheOIGReportstatesthatLeveyspecificallyconsultedDavidLaufman,theDeputyAttorneyGeneralsChiefofStaff.OIGReportat62.ThedissenttakesthisasdefinitiveproofthatAshcroftwasnotconsultedonthis,orthemerger,decision.DissentingOp.,postat4749.ThedissentmischaracterizesourreferencetotheCIAchecksdecision.WedonotcontendthatLeveyconsultedAshcroftaboutthatdecision,nordoweneedto.Inourview,thefactthatLeveyspoketoLaufmanaboutthatdecisionisnottheendofthematter;indeed,theonlyrelevanceoftheCIAchecksdecision,period,isthatLeveywasnotcapableofmakingitonhisown,suggestingthathealsowouldnotbeabletomakethelistmergerdecisiononhisown.28Indeed,ZiglartoldtheOIGthathecontactedAshcroftsofficeonNovember7,2001,todiscussconcernsabouttheprocessofclearingnamesfromtheINSCustodyList,especiallytheimpactthatmergingthelistswouldhaveonthatprocessandsaidthatbasedontheseandothercontactswithseniorDepartmentofficials,hebelievedtheDepartmentwasfullyawareoftheINSsconcerns.OIGReportat6667.ThisalsosuggeststhatLeveyhadcommunicatedthoseconcernstoAshcroft,whononethelessmadethedecisiontomergethelists.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page52 of 109
-
53
ThedissentarguesthattheOIGReportforeclosestheplausibilityofthe1
allegationthatLeveybroughtthelistmergerdecisiontoAshcroftbecause2
Leveymadethelistsmergerdecision[a]ttheconclusionofthe[November2]3
meetingatwhichthesubjectwasfirstraisedtohim.DissentingOp.,postat494
(quotingOIGReportat56).ButtheOIGReportdoesnotindicatethatthemerger5
issuewasfirstraisedtoLeveyattheNovember2meeting.Rather,theOIG6
ReportmakesclearthattheissueoftheNewYorkListwasdiscoveredin7
October2001,29andthatthedecisiontomergethelistswascommunicatedatthe8
November2meeting.Thus,surelyitisplausiblethatLeveyconsultedwithmore9
seniorofficials,includingAshcroft,priortothatmeeting.30Ofcourse,discovery10
mayshowthatLeveywassolelyresponsibleforthedecision.But,again,the11
29WhilethedissentsobservationthatLeveydidnotattendtheOctober22,2001meetingduringwhichtheproblemspresentedbytheNewYorkListwerediscussedisaccurate,itisalsoirrelevant.SeeDissentingOp.,postat4950(quotingOIGReportat55).WedonotcontendthatLeveylearnedabouttheNewYorkListattheOctober22meeting,butsimplythathelearnedaboutitbeforetheNovember2meeting,givinghimtimetoconsultwithmoreseniorofficials,includingAshcroft,beforecommunicatingadecisionatthatNovembermeeting.Indeed,onewouldthinkthatLeveywouldnotattendtheNovember2meetingwithoutknowingitsagenda.30ThedissentchallengesthesufficiencyofPlaintiffsallegationsandourreadingofthemaswhollyspeculative.DissentingOp.,postat48.Ofcourse,PlaintiffshavenowayofknowingwhatLeveyandAshcroftdiscussed;nordowe.Iqbaldoesnotrequireasmuch,butrathersufficientfactualmatter,acceptedastruetoallowthecourttodrawthereasonableinferencethatAshcroftwasultimatelyresponsibleforthedecision.556U.S.at678.WebelievethatPlaintiffshavemetthisburden.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page53 of 109
-
54
questioniswhetherPlaintiffsallegationssupporttheinferencethatthedecision1
wasAshcrofts;theydo.2
TheMDCPlaintiffsallegationsagainstMuellerandZiglararealso3
sufficient.TheComplaintalleges,interalia,thatAshcroftmadethedecisionto4
mergethelistsinspiteofthelackofindividualizedsuspicionlinkingtheMDC5
PlaintiffstoterrorismandthatMuellerandZiglarwerefullyinformedofthis6
decision,andcompliedwithit.Compl.47;seealsoid.5557,67.Mueller7
andZiglararenotexculpatedfromthisclaimmerelybecausePlaintiffsallege8
thattheycompliedwith,asopposedtoordered,thelistmerger.Plaintiffs9
plausiblypleadthatbothwereawarethattheseparatelistcontaineddetainees10
forwhomtheFBIhadassertednointerestandthatsubjectingthemtothe11
challengedconditionswouldbefaciallyunreasonable.Evenifanofficialisnot12
thesourceofachallengedpolicy,thatofficialcanbeheldpersonallyliablefor13
constitutionalviolationsstemmingfromtheexecutionofhissuperiorsordersif14
thoseordersarefaciallyinvalidorclearlyillegal.See,e.g.,Varronev.Bilotti,12315
F.3d75,81(2dCir.1997)(grantingdefendantsqualifiedimmunitywherethere16
wasnoclaimthattheorderwasfaciallyinvalidorobviouslyillegal).Inthis17
instance,PlaintiffsplausiblyallegethatAshcroftsdecisionwasfaciallyinvalid;it18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page54 of 109
-
55
wouldbeunreasonableforMuellerandZiglartoconcludethatholdingordinary1
civildetaineesunderthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailablewas2
lawful.3
4. PunitiveIntent4
TheMDCPlaintiffsmustshownotonlythattheDOJDefendantsknewof5
andapprovedcontinueduseoftheADMAXSHU,butalsothattheydidsowith6
punitiveintentthattheyendorsedtheuseofthoseconditionswithanintentto7
punishtheMDCPlaintiffs.Federalcourtshavelongrecognizedthatpunitive8
intentisnotoftenadmitted.TheSupremeCourthasnotedthatitcanbeinferred9
iftheconditionsofconfinementarenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal.10
Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Iftheconditionsunderwhichoneisheldhaveno11
reasonableconnectiontoalegitimategoalofthestate,thenonelogical12
assumptionisthattheyareimposedfornootherpurposethantopunish.Seeid.13
TheDOJDefendantsarguethateveniftheyknewoftheplightoftheMDC14
Plaintiffs,thedecisiontocontinuetheirconfinementattheMDCunder15
exceptionallyharshconditionswasmotivatedbynationalsecurityconcernsa16
legitimateworryduringthedaysfollowingthe9/11attacksandnotsome17
animusdirectedattheMDCPlaintiffs.Theyseemtoimplythatoncenational18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page55 of 109
-
56
securityconcernsbecomeareasonforholdingsomeone,thereisnoneedto1
showaconnectionbetweenthoseconcernsandthecaptiveotherthanthatthe2
captivesharescommontraitsoftheterrorist:illegalimmigrantstatusanda3
perceivedAraborMuslimaffiliation.Indeed,ourdissentingcolleagueasserts4
thatbecausetheMDCPlaintiffswere,orappearedtobe,membersofthe5
groupAraborMuslimmalesthatwastargetedforrecruitmentbyalQaeda6
thattheycouldbeheldintheADMAXSHUwithoutanyreasonablesuspicionof7
terroristactivity.DissentingOp.,postat6465,7677.Underthisview,theMDC8
Plaintiffswerenotheldwithpunitiveintentbecausetherewasnowaytoknow9
thattheywerenotinvolvedinterroristactivities.SimplybeingintheUnited10
Statesillegallyandbeing,orappearingtobe,AraborMuslimwasenoughto11
justifydetentioninthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailable.12
Indeed,Leveyadmittedthatthedecisiontomergethelists,ensuringthatsome13
ofthe9/11detaineeswouldbesubjecttothechallengedharshconditionsof14
confinement,wasmadebecausehewantedtoerronthesideofcautionsothata15
terroristwouldnotbereleasedbymistake.OIGReportat56.16
Thisargumentrestsontheassumptionthatifanindividualwasanoutof17
statusAraborMuslim,andsomeonecalledtheFBIforeventhemostabsurd18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page56 of 109
-
57
reason,thatindividualwasconsideredapossiblethreattonationalsecurity.It1
presumes,inessence,thatalloutofstatusArabsorMuslimswerepotential2
terroristsuntilprovenotherwise.Itisbuiltonaperceptionofaraceandfaith3
thathasnobasisinfact.Therewasnolegitimategovernmentalpurposein4
holdingsomeoneinthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailable5
simplybecausehehappenedtobeor,worseyet,appearedtobeArabor6
Muslim.7
Tobeclear,itisnosurprisenorisitconstitutionallyproblematicthat8
theenforcementofourimmigrationlawsinthewakeof9/11hadadisparate,9
incidentalimpactonArabMuslims.Iqbal,556U.S.at682.Andwedonot10
contendthatSupremeCourt,orourown,precedentrequiresindividualized11
suspiciontosubjectdetaineestogenerallyrestrictiveconditionsofconfinement;12
restrictionisanincidentofdetention.Rather,wesimplyacknowledgethatifa13
restrictionorconditionisnotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoalifitis14
arbitraryorpurposelessacourtpermissiblymayinferthatthepurposeofthe15
governmentalactionispunishmentthatmaynotconstitutionallybeinflicted16
upondetaineesquadetainees.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Webelieve,then,that17
thechallengedconditionskeepingdetaineesintheircellsfortwentythree18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page57 of 109
-
58
hoursaday,constructivelydenyingthemrecreationandexposingthemtothe1
elements,stripsearchingthemwhenevertheywereremovedfromorreturnedto2
theircells,denyingthemsleepbybrightlightswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoa3
legitimategoal,butratherwerepunitiveandunconstitutional.4
Whilenationalsecurityconcernscouldjustifydetainingthoseindividuals5
withsuspectedtiestoterrorisminthesechallengedconditionsforthelitanyof6
reasonsarticulatedbythedissent,seeDissentingOp.,postat6768,those7
concernsdonotjustifydetainingindividualssolelyonthebasisofan8
immigrationviolationandtheirperceivedraceorreligioninthosesame9
conditions.Individualizedsuspicionisrequiredherebecause,absentsome10
indicationthatthedetaineeshadatietoterrorism,therestrictionsorconditions11
oftheADMAXSHUwerearbitraryorpurposeless.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.3112
31Thedissentcitesseveralcasesthatitclaimsdemonstratethatindividualizedsuspicionisnotrequiredforimposingrestrictiveconditionsofconfinement.DissentingOp.,postat6263.Wedonotdisagree:individualizedsuspicionisnotrequiredtoimposeconditionsthatarereasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjective.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Thus,ineachofthecasescitedbythedissent,ratherthanannouncethatindividualizedsuspicionwasnotrequired,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthattherestrictionsatissueineachofthosecaseswererelatedtothelegitimategoalofprisonsecurityand,therefore,werenotpunitive.Thus,thecasescitedbythedissentdonotchangeourconclusionhere,wherethechallengedconditionsthemostrestrictiveavailableandimposedondetaineesquadetaineesarenotreasonablyrelatedtoeitherthegoalofprisonsecurity,ornationalsecurity.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page58 of 109
-
59
Indeed,inWolfish,theSupremeCourtacknowledgedthatloadinga1
detaineewithchainsandshacklesandthrowinghiminadungeonmayensure2
his[detention]andpreservethesecurityoftheinstitution.Butitwouldbe3
difficulttoconceiveofasituationwhereconditionssoharsh,employedto4
achieveobjectivesthatcouldbeaccomplishedinsomanyalternativeandless5
harshmethods,wouldnotsupportaconclusionthatthepurposeforwhichthey6
wereimposedwastopunish.Id.at539n.20.Thatisthesituationbeforeus.7
ClearlydetentionconditionslessrestrictivethantheADMAXSHUwerefeasible8
fortheMDCPlaintiffs,giventhatthedetaineesheldinthePassaicfacilitywere9
notheldinisolationorotherwiseplacedinrestrictiveconfinement.Compl.10
66.PlacingtheMDCPlaintiffsinchainsandshacklesandthrowingthemin11
theADMAXSHUensuredthattheyposednothreatintheaftermathof9/11;but12
wecanreachnoconclusionotherthanthattheDOJDefendantsdecisiontodoso13
wasmadewithpunitiveintent.14
Inviewoftheforegoing,weholdthattheMDCPlaintiffsfailtoplausibly15
pleadasubstantivedueprocessclaimagainsttheDOJDefendantscoextensive16
withtheentirepost9/11investigationandreachingbacktothetimeofPlaintiffs17
initialdetention.Nonetheless,Plaintiffswellpleadedallegations,inconjunction18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page59 of 109
-
60
withtheOIGReportsdocumentationofeventssuchastheNewYorkList1
controversy,renderplausibletheclaimthatbythebeginningofNovember2001,2
Ashcroftknewof,andapproved,theMDCPlaintiffsconfinementundersevere3
conditions,andthatMuellerandZiglarcompliedwithAshcroftsorder4
notwithstandingtheirknowledgethatthegovernmenthadnoevidencelinking5
theMDCPlaintiffstoterroristactivity.Discoverymayultimatelyprove6
otherwise,butforpresentpurposes,theMDCPlaintiffssubstantivedueprocess7
claimwiththeexceptionofthetemporallimitationnotedabovemayproceed8
againsttheDOJDefendants.9
5. QualifiedImmunity10
Adefendantisentitledtoqualifiedimmunityifhecanestablish(1)that11
thecomplaintfailstoplausiblypleadthatthedefendantpersonallyviolatedthe12
plaintiffsconstitutionalrights,or(2)thattherightwasnotclearlyestablishedat13
thetimeinquestion.SeePearsonv.Callahan,555U.S.223,232(2009);Varrone,12314
F.3dat78(notingthatthequalifiedimmunityinquiryturns,generally,onthe15
objectivelegalreasonablenessofadefendantsactions).16
Forthereasonsstatedabove,theMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatthe17
DOJDefendantsviolatedtheirsubstantivedueprocessrights.Withregardtothe18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page60 of 109
-
61
secondprongofthisinquiry,thelawregardingthepunishmentofpretrial1
detaineeswasclearlyestablishedinthefallof2001.Asdiscussed,Wolfishmade2
clearthataparticularconditionorrestrictionofpretrialdetentionnotreasonably3
relatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjectiveispunishmentinviolationofthe4
constitutionalrightsofdetainees.See441U.S.at53539&n.20.AndinHasty,5
thisCourtdeniedqualifiedimmunitywithrespecttoamateriallyidentical6
conditionsclaimagainstHasty.490F.3dat16869.Weexplainedthat[t]he7
rightofpretrialdetaineestobefreefrompunitiverestraintswasclearly8
establishedatthetimeoftheeventsinquestion,andnoreasonableofficercould9
havethoughtthathecouldpunishapretrialdetaineebysubjectinghimtothe10
practicesandconditionsallegedbythePlaintiff.Id.at169.11
Hastyfurtherrejectedtheargumentthatthepost9/11contextwarranted12
qualifiedimmunityevenifitwasotherwiseunavailable.Id.at15960,169.13
Recognizingthegravityofthesituationthat9/11presented,weexplainedthat14
qualifiedimmunityremainedinappropriatebecauseapretrialdetaineesrightto15
befreefrompunishmentdoesnotvarywiththesurroundingcircumstances.Id.16
at159.Nothinghasunderminedthelogicorprecedentialauthorityofour17
qualifiedimmunityholdinginHasty.WethereforeconcludethattheDOJ18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page61 of 109
-
62
DefendantsarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityontheMDCPlaintiffs1
conditionsofconfinementclaim.2
C. TheMDCDefendants3
Inhisopinionbelow,JudgeGleesondividedtheMDCPlaintiffs4
conditionsofconfinementclaimagainsttheMDCDefendantsintotwo5
categories:officialconditionsallegationsandunofficialabuseallegations.6
Theofficialconditionsallegationsconcernexpressconfinementpoliciesthat7
theMDCDefendantsapprovedandimplemented;theunofficialabuse8
allegationsconcernthephysicalandverbalabusethattheMDCDefendants9
employedorpermittedtheirsubordinatestoemploy.Wefindthistaxonomy10
helpfulinanalyzingtheconditionsclaimagainstHasty,Sherman,andZenk.3211
1. OfficialConditions12
TheMDCPlaintiffsgenerallyallegethattheofficialconditionstowhich13
theMDCDefendantssubjectedthemconstitutedpunishment.Wedonot14
addresswhetherPlaintiffshavesufficientlyallegedanexpressintenttopunish,15
butratheranalyzewhethertheyhaveplausiblypleadedthat(1)theMDC16
32PlaintiffsallegationsagainstZenkdonotextendtotheunofficialabusenortoanyharmarisingfromtheofficialconditionsthatoccurredpriortoApril22,2002,thedatehebecameMDCWarden.
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page62 of 109
-
63
Defendantscausedthemtosufferthechallengedconditions,andthat(2)the1
challengedconditionswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal,which2
allowsustoinferpunitiveintent,Wolfish,441U.S.at539.3
TheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatHastyandShermanarepersonally4
responsibleforandcausedtheMDCPlaintiffstosufferthechallenged5
conditions.TheComplaintcontainsallegationsthatHastyorderedthecreation6
oftheADMAXSHUanddirectedtwoofhissubordinatestodesignextremely7
restrictiveconditionsofconfinement.Compl.24,75;seealsoid.768
(describingtheextremeconditionsintheADMAXSHU).Accordingtothe9
Complaint,thoseconditionswerethenapprovedandimplementedbyHastyand10
Sherman.Id.75.11
TheOIGreportssupporttheseallegations.Whilethedecisiontoimpose12
highlyrestrictiveconditionswasmadeatBOPheadquarters,OIGReportat19,13
MDCofficialscreatedtheparticularconditionsimposed,id.at12425.The14
reportsspecifythatMDCofficialsmodifiedonewingofthepreexistingSHUto15
accommodatethedetaineesandthattheADMAXSHUwasdesignedtoconfine16
thedetaineesinthemostrestrictiveandsecureconditionspermittedbyBOP17
policy.SupplementalOIGReportat23.AsWardenandAssociateWardenof18
Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page63 of 109
-
64
theMDC,HastyandShermanhadtheresponsibilitytocarryoutthesetasks.But1
thatalonewouldnotsustainliabilityforeither.2
Ho