Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page1 of 109

13981(L)
Turkmen,etal.v.Hasty,etal.

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT

AugustTerm,2013

1
2
3
4
5
6

(Argued:May1,2014Decided:June17,2015)

DocketNos.13981,13999,131002,131003,131662

IBRAHIMTURKMEN,AKHILSACHDEVA,AHMERIQBALABBASI,
ANSERMEHMOOD,BENAMARBENATTA,AHMEDKHALIFA,
SAEEDHAMMOUDA,PURNABAJRACHARYA,onbehalfofthemselvesand
allotherssimilarlysituated,

PlaintiffsAppelleesCrossAppellants,

v.

DENNISHASTY,formerWardenoftheMetropolitanDetentionCenter,
MICHAELZENK,formerWardenoftheMetropolitanDetentionCenter,
JAMESSHERMAN,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterAssociate
WardenforCustody,

DefendantsAppellants,

JOHNASHCROFT,formerAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStates,
ROBERTMUELLER,formerDirector,FederalBureauofInvestigation,
JAMESW.ZIGLAR,formerCommissioner,Immigrationand
NaturalizationService,

DefendantsCrossAppellees,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page2 of 109

1
2
3
4

5
6
7

Before:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

POOLER,RAGGI,ANDWESLEY,CircuitJudges.

AppealfromaJanuary15,2013MemorandumandOrderoftheUnitedStates
DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofNewYork(Gleeson,J.)grantinginpart
anddenyinginpartDefendantsmotionstodismiss.CrossappealfromanApril
10,2013JudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictof
NewYork(Gleeson,J.),whichwasenteredpursuanttoRule54(b)oftheFederal
RulesofCivilProcedureonApril11,2013,grantingcertainDefendantsmotions
todismiss.WeAFFIRMinpartandREVERSEinpart.JudgeRaggiconcursin
partinthejudgmentanddissentsinpartinaseparateopinion.

RACHELA.MEEROPOL,CenterforConstitutionalRights,
NewYork,NY(MichaelWinger,SunitaPatel,BaherA.
Azmy,CenterforConstitutionalRights,NewYork,NY;
NancyL.Kestenbaum,JenniferL.Robbins,JoanneSum
Ping,Covington&BurlingLLP,NewYork,NY,onthe
brief),forPlaintiffsAppelleesCrossAppellants.

HUGHD.SANDLER,Crowell&MoringLLP,NewYork,
NY(ShariRossLahlou,Crowell&MoringLLP,
Washington,D.C.,onthebrief),forDefendantAppellant
DennisHasty.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

SALVATORELOPRESTI,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterCaptain,
JOSEPHCUCITI,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterLieutenant,

Defendants.*

JOSHUAC.KLEIN(AllanN.Taffet,KirkL.Brett,Megan
E.Uhle,onthebrief),Duval&StachenfeldLLP,New
York,NY,forDefendantAppellantMichaelZenk.

32
33
34

TheClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoamendthecaptionassetforthabove.

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page3 of 109

JEFFREYA.LAMKEN,MoloLamkenLLP,Washington,
D.C.(MartinV.Totaro,MoloLamkenLLP,Washington,
D.C.;DebraL.Roth,JuliaH.Perkins,Shaw,Bransford
&RothP.C.,Washington,D.C.,onthebrief),for
DefendantAppellantJamesSherman.

H.THOMASBYRONIII,AppellateAttorney,Civil
Division(StuartF.Delery,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,
RonaldC.MachenJr.,UnitedStatesAttorney,Dana
Boente,UnitedStatesAttorney,BarbaraL.Herwig,
AppellateAttorney,CivilDivision,onthebrief),U.S.
DepartmentofJustice,Washington,D.C.,forDefendants
CrossAppelleesJohnAshcroftandRobertMueller.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

WILLIAMALDENMCDANIEL,JR.,BallardSpahrLLP,
Baltimore,MD,forDefendantCrossAppelleeJamesW.
Ziglar.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TrinaRealmuto,NationalImmigrationProjectofthe
NationalLawyersGuild,Boston,MA;MaryKenney,
AmericanImmigrationCouncil,Washington,D.C.,
amicicuriaeinsupportofPlaintiffsAppelleesCross
Appellants.

POOLERANDWESLEY,CircuitJudges:
OnSeptember11,2001,19ArabMuslimhijackerswhocounted

29

themselvesmembersingoodstandingofalQaedahijackedfourairplanesand

30

killedover3,000peopleonAmericansoil.Ashcroftv.Iqbal(Iqbal),556U.S.662,

31

682(2009).Thiscaseraisesadifficultanddelicatesetoflegalissuesconcerning

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page4 of 109

individualswhowerecaughtupinthepost9/11investigationeventhoughthey

wereunquestionablyneverinvolvedinterroristactivity.Plaintiffsareeight

male,outofstatusaliens1whowerearrestedonimmigrationchargesand

detainedfollowingthe9/11attacks.PlaintiffswereheldattheMetropolitan

DetentionCenter(theMDC)inBrooklyn,NewYork,orthePassaicCountyJail

(Passaic)inPaterson,NewJersey;theirindividualdetentionsgenerallyranged

fromapproximatelythreetoeightmonths.
Theoperativecomplaint,aputativeclassaction,assertsvariousclaims

8
9

againstformerAttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroft;formerDirectoroftheFederal

10

BureauofInvestigation(theFBI)RobertMueller;formerCommissionerofthe

11

ImmigrationandNaturalizationService(theINS)JamesZiglar;formerMDC

12

WardenDennisHasty;formerMDCWardenMichaelZenk;andformerMDC

13

AssociateWardenJamesSherman.2Allclaimsariseoutofallegedly

Weusethetermoutofstatusalientomeanonewhohaseither(1)enteredthe
UnitedStatesillegallyandisdeportableifapprehended,or(2)enteredtheUnitedStates
legallybutwhohasfallenoutofstatusbyviolatingtherulesorguidelinesforhis
nonimmigrantstatus(oftenbyoverstayinghisvisa)intheUnitedStatesandis
deportable.
2Foreaseofreference,werefertoAshcroft,Mueller,andZiglarcollectivelyasthe
DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)Defendants,andHasty,Sherman,andZenkcollectively
astheMDCDefendants.TheoperativecomplaintalsoallegesclaimsagainstMDC
officialsJosephCucitiandSalvatoreLopresti.Cucitididnotappealthedistrictcourts
decision,andLoprestifiledanoticeofappealbutdidnottimelypaythefilingfeeorfile
1

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page5 of 109

discriminatoryandpunitivetreatmentPlaintiffssufferedwhileconfinedatthe

MDCorPassaic.

BACKGROUND

3
4
5

I.

ProceduralHistory3
PlaintiffsinitiatedthisactionoverthirteenyearsagoonApril17,2002.

Overthefollowingtwoandonehalfyears,Plaintiffsamendedtheircomplaint

threetimes.InJune2006,followingaseriesofmotionstodismiss,thedistrict

courtdismissedPlaintiffsunlawfullengthofdetentionclaimsbutpermittedto

proceed,interalia,thesubstantivedueprocessandequalprotectionclaims

10

challengingtheconditionsofconfinementattheMDC.SeeTurkmenv.Ashcroft

11

(TurkmenI),No.02CV2307(JG),2006WL1662663,at*3336,4041(E.D.N.Y.

12

June14,2006),affdinpart,vacatedinpart,Turkmenv.Ashcroft(TurkmenII),589

13

F.3d542(2dCir.2009)(percuriam),remandedtoTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat

14

314.PlaintiffsandDefendantsappealedvariousaspectsofthatruling.

15
16

Twosignificanteventsoccurredwhiletheappealwaspending.First,six
oftheoriginaleightnamedPlaintiffsatthattimewithdreworsettledtheirclaims

abrief.LoprestisappealwasdismissedpursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellate
Procedure31(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, Page6 of 109

againstthegovernment.SeeTurkmenII,589F.3dat544n.1,545.Thisleftonly

IbrahimTurkmenandAkhilSachdeva,bothofwhomweredetainedatPassaic,

asopposedtotheMDC.Second,theSupremeCourtissuedIqbal,556U.S.at662,

whichalteredthepleadingregimegoverningPlaintiffsclaims.Inlightofthese

eventsandtheremainingPlaintiffsstateddesiretorepleadclaimsuniquetothe

settlingPlaintiffs,thisCourtaffirmedthedismissalofthelengthofdetention

claimsbutvacatedandremandedwithrespecttotheconditionsofconfinement

claims.SeeTurkmenII,589F.3dat54647,54950.

Onremand,thedistrictcourtpermittedPlaintiffstoamendtheircomplaint

10

andgrantedleaveforsixadditionalPlaintiffs,allofwhomhadbeenheldatthe

11

MDC,tointervene.TheeightcurrentnamedPlaintiffsareofMiddleEastern,

12

NorthAfrican,orSouthAsianorigin;sixofthemareMuslim,oneisHindu,and

13

oneisBuddhist.TheFourthAmendedComplaint(theComplaint),the

14

operativecomplaintinthiscase,restatesPlaintiffsputativeclassclaimson

15

behalfofthe9/11detainees,aclassofsimilarlysituatednoncitizenswhoare

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page7 of 109

AraborMuslim,orwereperceivedbyDefendantsasAraborMuslim,andwere

arrestedanddetainedinresponsetothe9/11attacks.4
TheComplaintdramaticallywinnowedtherelevantclaimsand

3
4

defendants;itallegessevenclaimsagainsteightdefendants.Thefirstsixclaims,

allbroughtpursuanttoBivensv.SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFederalBureauof

Narcotics,403U.S.388(1971),are:(1)aconditionsofconfinementclaimunderthe

DueProcessClause;(2)anequalprotectionclaimallegingthatDefendants

subjectedPlaintiffstothechallengedconditionsbecauseoftheir,ortheir

perceived,race,religion,ethnicity,and/ornationalorigin;(3)aclaimarising

10

undertheFreeExerciseClause;(4)and(5)twoclaimsgenerallyalleging

11

interferencewithcounsel;and(6)aclaimundertheFourthandFifth

12

Amendmentsallegingunreasonableandpunitivestripsearches.Theseventh

13

andfinalclaimallegesaconspiracyunder42U.S.C.1985(3).TheDOJand

14

MDCDefendantsmovedtodismisstheComplaintforfailuretostateaclaim,on

BenamarBenattawasoriginallydetainedbyCanadianauthoritiesonSeptember5,
2001,aftercrossingtheCanadianborderwithfalsedocumentation.Followingthe
September11attacks,BenattawastransportedbacktotheUnitedStatesanddetainedin
thechallengedconditionsofconfinementandpursuanttothepost9/11investigation;
therefore,wecallhima9/11detainee.
4

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page8 of 109

qualifiedimmunitygrounds,and,insomeinstances,basedonatheorythat

Bivensreliefdidnotextendtotheclaimatissue.

II.

TheOIGReports
Plaintiffssupplementedthefactualallegationsintheiramended

4
5

complaintswithinformationgleanedfromtworeportsbytheOfficeofthe

InspectorGeneraloftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice(theOIG

reports)5thatdocumentedthefederallawenforcementresponseto9/11and

conditionsattheMDCandPassaic.
TheOIGreports,whichtheComplaintincorporate[s]byreferenceexcept

9
10

wherecontradictedbytheallegationsof[theComplaint],Compl.3n.1,seealso

11

id.5n.2,playasignificantroleinthiscase.6Primarily,theOIGreportsprovide

TherearetwoOIGreports.ThefirstOIGreport,publishedinJune2003,covers
multipleaspectsoflawenforcementsresponseto9/11.SeeU.S.DeptofJustice,Office
oftheInspectorGeneral,TheSeptember11Detainees:AReviewoftheTreatmentof
AliensHeldonImmigrationChargesinConnectionwiththeInvestigationofthe
September11Attacks(April2003)(theOIGReport),availableat
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf.ThesecondOIGreport,publishedin
December2003,focusesonabusesattheMDC.SeeU.S.DeptofJustice,Officeofthe
InspectorGeneral,SupplementalReportonSeptember11DetaineesAllegationsof
AbuseattheMetropolitanDetentionCenterinBrooklyn,NewYork(Dec.2003)(the
SupplementalOIGReport),availableat
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0312/final.pdf.
6VariousDefendantschallengethedistrictcourtsdecisiontoconsidertheOIGreports
totheextentthattheyarenotcontradictedbytheComplaint.Defendantsarecorrect
thatacomplaintinclude[s]anywritteninstrumentattachedtoitasanexhibitorany
5

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page9 of 109

invaluablecontextfortheunprecedentedchallengesfollowing9/11andthe

variousstrategiesfederalagenciesemployedtoconfrontthesechallenges.The

reportshelporientouranalysisoftheComplaint.

III.

PlaintiffsAllegations7
Intheaftermathofthe9/11attacks,theFBIandotheragencieswithinthe

DOJimmediatelyinitiatedanimmenseinvestigationaimedatidentifyingthe

9/11perpetratorsandpreventinganyfurtherattacks.SeeOIGReportat1,1112.

PENTTBOM,thePentagon/TwinTowersBombingsinvestigation,wasinitially

runoutoftheFBIsfieldoffices,butshortlythereafter,Muellerorderedthat

10

managementoftheinvestigationbeswitchedtotheFBIsStrategicInformation

statementsordocumentsincorporatedinitbyreference.CortecIndus.,Inc.v.Sum
HoldingL.P.,949F.2d42,47(2dCir.1991);accordDiFolcov.MSNBCCableL.L.C.,622
F.3d104,111(2dCir.2010).Buttheirobjectionmissesthepoint.Thedistrictcourt
accuratelyexplainedthatatthepleadingstage,althoughwemustconsiderthewords
onthepage(thatis,wecannotdisregardthefactthattheOIGreportsmakeparticular
findings),weneednotconsiderthetruthofthosewordstotheextentdisputedby
Plaintiffs.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat342n.14(citingDiFolco,622F.3dat111).
EvenwerewetoviewtheOIGreportsasfullyincorporated,relianceonanyassertion
offactrequiresacredibilityassessmentthatwearefundamentallyunsuitedto
undertakeattheRule12(b)(6)stage.AndalthoughtheOIGreportscannot
determinativelyproveordisprovePlaintiffsallegations,theyremainrelevanttoour
analysisbecausetheysupplementourunderstandingofthelawenforcementresponse
to9/11.
7TheallegationssetforthhereinaredrawnfromtheComplaintandthoseportionsof
theOIGreportsincorporatedbyreference.Seesupranote6.Wepresumetheveracity
ofPlaintiffswellpleadedallegations.Iqbal,556U.S.at679.

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page10 of 109

andOperationsCenter(theSIOC)atFBIHeadquartersinWashington,D.C.

MuellerpersonallydirectedPENTTBOMfromtheSIOCandremainedindaily

contactwithFBIfieldoffices.
InconjunctionwithPENTTBOM,theDeputyAttorneyGeneralsOffice

4
5

(theDAGsOffice)establishedtheSIOCWorkingGrouptocoordinateefforts

amongthevariouscomponentswithinthe[DOJ]thathadaninvestigative

interestin[,]orresponsibilityfor[,]theSeptember11detainees.Id.at15.8The

SIOCWorkingGroupincludedrepresentativesfrom,amongotheragencies,the

FBI,theINS,andtheDAGsOffice.Thisgroupmetdailyifnotmultipletimes

10

inasingledayinthemonthsfollowing9/11;itsdutiesincludedcoordinat[ing]

11

informationandevidencesharingamongtheFBI,INS,andU.S.Attorneys

12

officesandensur[ing]thataliensdetainedaspartofthePENTTBOM

13

investigationwouldnotbereleaseduntiltheywereclearedbytheFBIof

14

involvementwiththeSeptember11attacksorterrorismingeneral.Id.
Giventhatthe9/11hijackerswereallforeignnationals,theDOJresponse

15
16

carriedamajorimmigrationlawcomponent.Seeid.at12.AshcroftandMueller

17

developedapolicywherebyanyMuslimorArabmanencounteredduringthe

TheSIOCWorkingGroupacquiredthisnamebecauseitsinitialmeetingsoccurredat
theFBIsSIOC.
8

10

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page11 of 109

investigationofatipreceivedinthe9/11terrorisminvestigation...and

discoveredtobeanoncitizenwhohadviolatedthetermsofhisvisa,was

arrested.Compl.1;seealsoid.3949.Ashcroftalsocreatedtherelated

holduntilclearedpolicy,whichmandatedthatindividualsarrestedinthe

wakeof9/11notbereleasedfromcustodyuntil[FBIHeadquarters]

affirmativelyclearedthemofterroristties.Id.2;seealsoOIGReportat3839.
Withinaweekof9/11,theFBIhadreceivedapproximately96,000tipsfrom

7
8

civiliansacrossthecountry.Thesetipsvariedsignificantlyinqualityand

reliability.9Mueller[nonetheless]orderedthateveryoneofthesetipsbe

10

investigated,eveniftheywereimplausibleontheirface.Compl.40.

11

Ultimately,762detaineeswereplacedontheINSCustodyList(theINSList)

12

thatthenmadethemsubjecttoAshcroftsholduntilclearedpolicy.
Inthemonthsfollowing9/11,theDOJDefendantsreceiveddetaileddaily

13
14

reportsofthearrestsanddetentions.Id.47.AshcroftandMuelleralsomet

Forinstance,TurkmencametotheFBIsattentionwhenhislandlordcalledtheFBIs
9/11hotlineandreportedthatsherentedanapartmentinherhometoseveralMiddle
Easternmen,andshewouldfeelawfulifhertenantswereinvolvedinterrorismand
shedidntcall.Compl.251.TheFBIknewthatheronlybasisforsuspectingthese
menwasthattheywereMiddleEastern;indeed,shereportedthattheyweregood
tenants,andpaidtheirrentontime.Id.AnotheralienwasarrestedaftertheFBI
receivedatipthatstatedthatthesmallgrocerystorewhereheworkedwasoverstaffed,
thusarousingthetipsterssuspicionsabouttheMiddleEasternmenthatworked
there.OIGReportat17.
9

11

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page12 of 109

regularlywithasmallgroupofgovernmentofficialsinWashington,D.C.,and

mappedoutwaystoexertmaximumpressureontheindividualsarrestedin

connectionwiththeterrorisminvestigation.Id.61.10Thissmallgroup

discussedanddecideduponastrategytorestrictthe9/11detaineesabilityto

contacttheoutsideworldanddelaytheirimmigrationhearings.Thegroupalso

decidedtospreadthewordamonglawenforcementpersonnelthatthe9/11

detaineesweresuspectedterrorists[]...andthattheyneededtobeencouraged

inanywaypossibletocooperate.Id.
Plaintiffs,withtheexceptionofTurkmenandSachdeva,wereheldatthe

9
10

MDC.UnderMDCconfinementpolicy,the9/11detaineesplacedintheMDC

11

wereheldintheMDCsAdministrativeMaximumSpecialHousingUnit(the

12

ADMAXSHU)aparticularlyrestrictivetypeofSHUnotfoundinmost

13

[BureauofPrisons(BOP)]facilitiesbecausethenormalSHUisusuallysufficient

ItisunclearwhetherthissmallgroupreferstotheSIOCWorkingGroupora
distinctgroupinvolvingAshcroft,Mueller,andotherseniorWashington,D.C.,officials.
OnepossibilityisthatPlaintiffsarereferringtothesmallgroupthatconsistedof
Ashcroft,Mueller,MichaelChertoff,whowasthenAssistantAttorneyGeneralofthe
CriminalDivision,andtheDeputyAttorneyGeneral.SeeOIGReportat13.According
toChertoff,thisgroupdiscussedtheDOJspost9/11lawenforcementstrategyand
policies.GiventhemakeupofthisgroupandtheSIOCWorkingGroup,itisreasonable
toinferthatinformationflowedbetweenthem;forinstance,Chertoffsdeputy,Alice
Fisher,wasplacedinchargeofimmigrationissuesfortheCriminalDivisionand
personallyestablishedtheSIOCWorkingGroup.
10

12

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page13 of 109

forcorrectinginmatemisbehaviorandaddressingsecurityconcerns.Id.76.

TheconfinementpolicywascreatedbytheMDCDefendantsinconsultation

withtheFBI.Id.65.

ConditionsintheADMAXSHUweresevereandbegantoreceivemedia

attentionsoonafterdetentionsbegan.SeeOIGReportat2,5.Detaineeswere:

placedintinycellsforover23hoursaday,Compl.5;stripsearchedevery

timetheywereremovedfromorreturnedtotheircell[s],...evenwhentheyhad

noconceivableopportunitytoobtaincontraband,id.112;providedwith

meagerandbarelyediblefood,id.128;deniedsleepbybrightlightsthat

10

wereleftonintheircellsfor24hoursaday,id.119,and,[o]nsomeoccasions,

11

correctionalofficerswalkedbyevery20minutesthroughoutthenight,kicked

12

thedoorstowakeupthedetainees,andyelledhighlydegradingandoffensive

13

comments,id.120;constructivelydeniedrecreationandexposedtothe

14

elements,seeid.12223;deniedaccesstobasichygieneitemsliketoilet

15

paper,soap,towels,toothpaste,[and]eatingutensils,id.130;andprohibited

16

frommovingaroundtheunit,usingthetelephonefreely,usingthecommissary,

17

oraccessingMDChandbooks,whichexplainedhowtofilecomplaintsabout

18

mistreatment,seeid.76,83,129,140.

13

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page14 of 109

MDCstaffalsosubjectedthe9/11detaineestofrequentphysicalandverbal

abuse.Theabuseincludedslammingthe9/11detaineesintowalls;bendingor

twistingtheirarms,hands,wrists,andfingers;liftingthemoffthegroundby

theirarms;pullingontheirarmsandhandcuffs;steppingontheirlegrestraints;

restrainingthemwithhandcuffsand/orshacklesevenwhileintheircells;and

handlingtheminotherroughandinappropriateways.Seeid.105;seealso

SupplementalOIGReportat828.MDCstaffalsoreferredtothe9/11detainees

asterrorists,andotheroffensivenames;threaten[ed]themwithviolence;

curs[ed]atthem;insult[ed]theirreligion;andma[de]humiliatingsexual

10

commentsduringstripsearches.Compl.109.Specifically,Plaintiffsand

11

putativeclassmembersattheMDCwerereferredtobystaffascamel[s],

12

fuckingMuslims,andArabicasshole[s],id.110,147,218.

13

TheMDCPlaintiffsdidnotreceivecopiesoftheKoranforweeksor

14

monthsafterrequestingthem,andonePlaintiffneverreceivedacopy,pursuant

15

toawrittenMDCpolicy...thatprohibitedthe9/11detaineesfromkeeping

16

anything,includingaKoran,intheircell[s].Id.132.TheMDCPlaintiffswere

17

alsodeniedtheHalalfoodrequiredbytheirMuslimfaith.Id.133.And

18

MDCstafffrequentlyinterruptedPlaintiffsandclassmembersprayers,

14

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page15 of 109

includingbybangingoncelldoors,yellingderogatorycomments,and

mockingthedetaineeswhiletheyprayed.Id.136.

ThenamedMDCPlaintiffsindividualexperiencesseveralofwhichare

highlightedbelowaddfurthertexturetotheircollectiveallegationsconcerning

thearrestandconfinementofthe9/11detainees.

A. AnserMehmood

Mehmood,acitizenofPakistananddevoutMuslim,enteredtheUnited

Statesonabusinessvisain1989withhiswife,Uzma,andtheirthreechildren.

Afterhisvisaexpired,Mehmoodremainedinthecountryandstartedatrucking

10

businessthatprovidedenoughearningstopurchaseahomeinNewJerseyand

11

tosendfundstohisfamilyinPakistan.In2000,whilelivinginNewJersey,he

12

andUzmahadtheirfourthchild.InMay2001,UzmasbrotheraUnitedStates

13

citizensubmittedanimmigrationpetitionfortheentirefamily.

14

OnthemorningofOctober3,2001,MehmoodwasasleepwithUzmaand

15

theironeyearoldsonwhenFBIandINSagentsknockedonhisdoor.The

16

agentssearchedMehmoodshomeandaskedwhetherhewasinvolvedwitha

17

jihad.Id.157.Mehmoodadmittedthathehadoverstayedhisvisa.TheFBI

18

informedMehmoodthattheywerenotinterestedinhim;theyhadcometoarrest

15

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page16 of 109

hiswifeUzma,whosenametheFBIhadencounteredwheninvestigating

PlaintiffAhmerAbbasi,herbrother.MehmoodconvincedtheFBItoarresthim

insteadofUzmabecausetheirsonwasstillbreastfeeding.TheAgenttold

Mehmoodthattheyhadnochoicebuttoarrestoneoftheparents,butthat

Mehmoodfacedaminorimmigrationviolationonly,andhewouldbeouton

bailwithindays.Id.159.

UponhisarrivalattheMDC,Mehmoodwasdraggedfromthevanby

severallargecorrectionalofficers,whothrewhimintoseveralwallsonhisway

intothefacility.Id.162.Hislefthandwasbrokenduringthisincidentand

10

[t]heguardsthreatenedtokillhimifheaskedanyquestions.Id.His

11

experienceintheADMAXSHUtrackedthatofother9/11detainees.For

12

instance,[w]heneverMehmoodwasremovedfromhiscell,hewasplacedin

13

handcuffs,chains,andshackles.FourormoreMDCstaffmemberstypically

14

escortedhimtohisdestination,frequentlyinflictingunnecessarypainalongthe

15

way,forexample,bybanginghimintothewall,dragginghim,carryinghim,and

16

steppingonhisshacklesandpushinghisfaceintothewall.Id.166.Neither

17

theFBInorINSinterviewedMehmoodfollowinghisarrest.Mehmoodwasnot

18

releasedfromtheADMAXSHUuntilFebruary6,2002.

16

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page17 of 109

B. AhmedKhalifa

Khalifa,whohadcompletedfiveyearstowardamedicaldegreeatthe

UniversityofAlexandriainEgypt,cametotheUnitedStatesonastudentvisain

July2001.HecametotheFBIsattentionaftertheFBIreceivedatipthatseveral

ArabswholivedatKhalifasaddresswererentingapostofficebox,andpossibly

sendingoutlargequantitiesofmoney.Id.195.OnSeptember30,2001,FBI,

INS,andofficersfromtheNewYorkCityPoliceDepartmentcametothe

apartmentKhalifasharedwithseveralEgyptianfriends.Theofficerssearched

hiswalletandapparentlybecameveryinterestedinalistofphonenumbersof

10

friendsinEgypt.Id.196.Aftersearchingtheapartment,theagentsasked

11

KhalifaforhispassportandifhehadanythingtodowithSeptember11.Id.

12

197.OneFBIagenttoldKhalifathattheywereonlyinterestedinthreeofhis

13

roommates,butanotheragentsaidtheyalsoneededKhalifa,whomtheyarrested

14

forworkingwithoutauthorization.Id.

15

OnOctober1,2001,afterbrieflystoppingatalocalINSdetentionfacilityto

16

completepaperwork,KhalifaandhisroommatesweretransportedtotheMDC.

17

WhenhearrivedattheMDC,Khalifawasslammedintothewall,pushedand

18

kickedbyMDCofficersandplacedintoawetcell,withamattressonthefloor.

17

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page18 of 109

Id.201.[His]wristswerecutandbruisedfromhishandcuffs,andhewas

worriedaboutotherdetainees,whomheheardgaspingandmoaningthrough

thewallsofhiscell.Id.

FBIandINSagentsinterviewedKhalifaonOctober7,2001.Oneofthe

agentsapologizedtoKhalifaafternoticingthebruisesonhiswrists.When

KhalifastatedthatMDCguardswereabusinghim,theagentsstateditwas

becausehewasMuslim.Id.202.Innotesfromtheinterview,theagentsdid

notquestionKhalifascredibility,andnotednosuspicionoftiestoterrorismor

interestinhiminconnectionwithPENTTBOM.

10

Followingtheinterview,MDCguardsstripsearchedKhalifaandlaughed

11

whentheymadehimbendoverandspreadhisbuttocks.Id.203.Khalifa

12

complainsoftheconditionsassociatedwithdetentionintheADMAXSHU,

13

includingarbitraryandabusivestripsearches,sleepdeprivation,constructive

14

denialofrecreationalactivitiesandhygieneitems,anddeprivationoffoodand

15

medicalattention.

16

ByNovember5,2001,theNewYorkFBIfieldofficeaffirmativelycleared

17

KhalifaofanytiestoterrorismandsenthisnametoFBIHeadquartersforfinal

18

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page19 of 109

clearance.KhalifawasnotofficiallycleareduntilDecember19,2001.He

remainedconfinedintheADMAXSHUuntilmidJanuary2002.

C. PurnaRajBajracharya

BajracharyaisneitherMuslimnorArab.HeisaBuddhistandnativeof

NepalwhoenteredtheUnitedStatesonathreemonthbusinessvisain1996.

Afteroverstayinghisvisa,BajracharyaremainedinQueens,NewYork,forfive

years,workingvariousoddjobstosendmoneyhometohiswifeandsonsin

Nepal.Havingplannedtoreturnhomeinthefallorwinterof2001,Bajracharya

usedavideocameratocapturethestreetshehadcometoknowinNewYork.

10

HecametotheFBIsattentiononOctober25,2001,whenaQueensCounty

11

DistrictAttorneysOfficeemployeeobservedan[A]rabmalevideotaping

12

outsideaQueens[]officebuildingthatcontainedtheQueensCountyDistrict

13

Attorney[s]OfficeandaNewYorkFBIoffice.Id.230.Whenapproachedby

14

investigatorsfromtheDistrictAttorneysOffice,Bajracharyatriedtoexplainthat

15

hewasatourist.Theinvestigatorstookhiminsidethebuildingandinterrogated

16

himforfivehours.FBIandINSagentsarrivedatsomepointduringthe

17

interrogation.Bajracharyasubsequentlytooktheagentstohisapartment;

19

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page20 of 109

providedthemwithhisidentificationdocuments,whichestablishedhiscountry

oforigin;andadmittedtooverstayinghisvisa.

Apparentlyduetothevideotaping,Bajracharyawasdesignatedasbeing

ofspecialinteresttotheFBIandonOctober27,2001,hewastransportedtothe

MDC.Id.23334.OnOctober30,2001,theFBIagentassignedto

Bajracharyascase,alongwithotherlawenforcementpersonnel,interviewedhim

withtheaidofaninterpreter.Duringtheinterview,Bajracharyawasasked

whetherhewasMuslimorknewanyMuslims.Id.235.Bajracharya

explainedthathewasnotMuslimandknewnoMuslims.TheFBIagentsnotes

10

fromtheinterviewdonotquestionBajracharyascredibilityorexpressany

11

suspicionoftiestoterrorism.Twodayslater,thesameagentaffirmatively

12

clearedBajracharyaofanylinktoterrorism.ByNovember5,2001,theNew

13

YorkFBIfieldofficecompleteditsinvestigationandforwardedBajracharyas

14

casetoFBIHeadquartersforfinalclearance.DocumentsatFBIHeadquarters

15

notethattheFBIhadnointerestinBajracharyabymidNovember2001.

16

Nonetheless,hewasnotreleasedfromtheADMAXSHUuntilJanuary13,2002.

17

TheFBIagentassignedtoBajracharyascasedidnotunderstandwhy

18

BajracharyaremainedintheADMAXSHUthroughoutthisperiod;theagent

20

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page21 of 109

eventuallycalledtheLegalAidSocietyandadvisedanattorneythatBajracharya

neededlegalrepresentation.
Bajracharya,whois53andweighedabout130poundsatthetimeofhis

3
4

arrest,complainsofthesameconditionscommontotheotherMDCPlaintiffs.

Forinstance,hecouldnotsleepduetothelightinhiscell,andwhenhewas

removedfromhiscell,hewouldbeplacedinhandcuffs,chains,andshackles

andescortedbyfourormoreMDCstaffmembers.Bajracharyabecameso

traumatizedbyhisexperienceintheADMAXSHUthatheweptconstantly.

WhenanattorneyrequestedthattheMDCtransferBajracharyatogeneral

10

population,anMDCdoctorrespondedthatBajracharyawascryingtoomuch,

11

andwouldcauseariot.Id.241.

12

IV.

13

TheNewYorkListandtheOfInterestDesignation
AsoriginallyarticulatedbyAshcroft,following9/11,theDOJsoughtto

14

preventfutureterrorismbyarrestinganddetainingthosepeoplewhohave

15

beenidentifiedaspersonswhoparticipatein,orlendsupportto,terrorist

16

activities.OIGReportat12(internalquotationmarksomitted).Tothatend,

17

MichaelPearson,whowasthenINSExecutiveAssociateCommissionerforField

18

Operations,issuedaseriesofOperationalOrders,whichaddressedthe

21

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page22 of 109

responsibilitiesofINSagentsoperatingwiththeFBItoinvestigateleadson

illegalaliens.ASeptember22,2001orderinstructedagentstoexercisesound

judgmentandtolimitarreststothosealiensinwhomtheFBIhadaninterest

anddiscouragedarrestincasesthatwereclearlyofnointerestinfurtheringthe

investigationoftheterroristattacksofSeptember11th.Id.at45(internal

quotationmarksomitted).TheofinterestdesignationbyanFBIagenthad

significantimplicationsforadetainee.Ofinterestdetaineeswereplacedon

theINSList,subjecttotheholduntilclearedpolicy,andrequiredFBIclearance

ofanyconnectiontoterrorismbeforetheycouldbereleasedorremovedfromthe

10

UnitedStates.DetaineeswhowerenotdesignatedofinteresttotheFBIs

11

PENTTBOMinvestigationwerenotplacedontheINSList,didnotrequire

12

clearancebytheFBI,andcouldbeprocessedaccordingtonormalINS

13

procedures.Id.at40.

14

Thearrestanddetentionmandatewasnotuniformlyimplemented

15

throughoutthecountry.Specifically,theNewYorkFBIinvestigatedall

16

PENTTBOMleadswithoutvettingtheinitialtipanddesignatedasofinterest

17

anyonepickeduponaPENTTBOMlead...regardlessofthestrengthofthe

18

evidenceortheoriginofthelead.Id.at41;seealsoCompl.4345.For

22

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page23 of 109

instance,daysafter9/11,NewYorkCitypolicestoppedthreeMiddleEastern

meninManhattanonatrafficviolationandfoundplanstoapublicschoolinthe

car.Thenextday,theiremployerconfirmedthatthemenhadtheplansbecause

theywereperformingconstructionworkontheschool.Nonetheless,themen

werearrestedanddetained.SeeOIGReportat42.Inanotherinstance,aMiddle

EasternmanwasarrestedforillegallycrossingintotheUnitedStatesfrom

Canadaoveraweekbefore9/11.Aftertheattacks,themanwasplacedonNew

Yorksspecialinterestlisteventhoughadocumentinhisfile,datedSeptember

26,2001,statedthatFBINewYorkhadnoknowledgeofthebasisforhis

10

detention.Id.at64(internalquotationmarksomitted).

11

Inmanycases,theNewYorkFBIdidnotevenattempttodetermine

12

whetherthealienwaslinkedtoterrorism,seeid.at14,16,4142,47,anditnever

13

labeledadetaineenointerestuntilaftertheclearanceprocesswascomplete,id.

14

at18(emphasisadded).Thus,aliensencounteredandarrestedpursuanttoa

15

PENTTBOMleadinNewYorkweredesignatedofinterest(orspecialinterest)

16

andhelduntilthelocalfieldofficeconfirmedtheyhadnotiestoterrorism.Id.at

23

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page24 of 109

14;seealsoid.at53.11TheresultwasthattheMDCPlaintiffsandotherssimilarly

situatedinNewYorkwereheldattheMDCADMAXSHUasiftheymetthe

nationalofinterestdesignation.Thesepracticesspecificallytheabsolutelack

oftriageappeartohavebeenuniquetoNewYork.Seeid.at47,56.12
AtsomepointinOctober2001,INSrepresentativestotheSIOCWorking

5
6

GrouplearnedthattheNewYorkFBIwasmaintainingaseparatelist(theNew

YorkList)ofdetaineeswhohadnotbeenincludedinthenationalINSList.One

explanationformaintainingaseparateNewYorkListwasthattheNewYorkFBI

couldnotdetermineifthedetaineeshadanyconnectionwithterroristactivity.

10

Id.at54.
AfterINSHeadquarterslearnedoftheseparateNewYorkList,small

11
12

groupsofseniorofficialsfromtheDAGsOffice,theFBI,andtheINSconvened

13

onatleasttwooccasionsinOctoberandNovember2001tosuggesthowtodeal

14

withthetwoseparatelistsofdetainees.IndiscussinghowtoaddresstheNew

TheOIGReportindicatesthat491ofthe762detaineeswerearrestedinNewYork.
OIGReportat2122.However,theOIGReportdoesnotidentifyhowmanyNewYork
arrestsweretheresultoftheNewYorkFBIsefforts.
12TheOIGReportpositsthattheNewYorkresponsedifferedfromtherestofthe
nation,atleastinpart,asaresultoftheNewYorkFBIandU.S.AttorneysOfficeslong
traditionofindependencefromtheirheadquartersinWashington,D.C.SeeOIGReport
at54.
11

24

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page25 of 109

YorkList,officialsattheINS,FBI,and[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,among

otherthings,whetherthealiens[ontheNewYorkList]hadanynexusto

terrorism.Id.at53.Nonetheless,thislistwasmergedwiththeINSListdueto

theconcernthatabsentfurtherinvestigation,theFBIcouldunwittinglypermita

dangerousindividualtoleavetheUnitedStates.Id.Thedecisiontomergethe

listsensuredthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNewYorkListwouldremain

detainedinthechallengedconditionsofconfinementasifthereweresome

suspicionthatthoseindividualsweretiedtoterrorism,eventhoughnosuch

suspicionexisted.

10
11

V.

TheIssuesonAppeal
InaJanuary15,2013MemorandumandOrder,thedistrictcourtgranted

12

inpartanddeniedinpartDefendantsmotionstodismisstheComplaint.The

13

districtcourtdismissedallclaimsagainsttheDOJDefendants.AstotheMDC

14

Defendants,thedistrictcourtdeniedtheirmotionstodismissPlaintiffs

15

substantivedueprocessconditionsofconfinementclaim(Claim1);equal

16

protectionconditionsofconfinementclaim(Claim2);freeexerciseclaim(Claim

17

3);unreasonablestripsearchclaim(Claim6);andconspiracyclaimunder42

18

U.S.C.1985(3)(Claim7).SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat324.TheMDC

25

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page26 of 109

Defendantsappealed,andPlaintiffscrossappealedthedismissaloftheclaims

againsttheDOJDefendantsbasedonajudgmentthatwasenteredpursuantto

Rule54(b)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.13

DISCUSSION14

4
5

I.

PleadingStandard

TosatisfyIqbalsplausibilitystandard,Plaintiffsmustplead[]factual

contentthatallowsthecourttodrawthereasonableinferencethatthedefendant

isliableforthemisconductalleged.556U.S.at678.Althoughplausibilityisnot

aprobabilityrequirement,Plaintiffsmustallegefactsthatpermitmorethana

10

sheerpossibilitythatadefendanthasactedunlawfully.Id.(internalquotation

11

marksomitted).Factualallegationsthataremerelyconsistentwithunlawful

12

conductdonotcreateareasonableinferenceofliability.Id.
Moreover,[t]hreadbarerecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofaction,

13
14

supportedbymereconclusorystatements,donotsuffice.Id.Wellpleaded

15

factualallegations,incontrast,shouldbepresumedtrue,andwemustdetermine

Plaintiffshavenotappealedthedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheirinterferencewith
counselclaims(Claims4and5).
14WereviewthedistrictcourtsdeterminationofDefendantsRule12(b)(6)motionsto
dismissdenovo.SeePapelinov.AlbanyColl.ofPharmacyofUnionUniv.,633F.3d81,88
(2dCir.2011).
13

26

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page27 of 109

whethertheyplausiblygiverisetoanentitlementtorelief.Id.at679.

Ultimately,everyplausibilitydeterminationisacontextspecifictaskthat

requiresthereviewingcourttodrawonitsjudicialexperienceandcommon

sense.Id.

WiththeexceptionoftheSection1985conspiracyclaim,allofPlaintiffs

claimsallegeconstitutionalviolationsbasedoninjuriesfirstrecognizedbythe

SupremeCourtinBivens,403U.S.at388.Duringthecourseofthislitigation,the

SupremeCourtmadeitclearinIqbalthatafederaltortfeasorsBivensliability

cannotbepremisedonvicariousliability.556U.S.at676.Thus,Plaintiffsmust

10

plausiblypleadthateachDefendant,throughtheofficialsownindividual

11

actions,violatedPlaintiffsconstitutionalrights.Id.Inotherwords,Bivens

12

reliefisavailableonlyagainstfederalofficialswhoarepersonallyliableforthe

13

allegedconstitutionaltort.Id.at67677.Iqbalprecludesrelyingona

14

supervisorsmereknowledgeofasubordinatesmentalstate(i.e.,discriminatory

15

orpunitiveintent)toinferthatthesupervisorsharedthatintent.Id.at677.

16

Knowingthatasubordinateengagedinaroguediscriminatoryorpunitiveactis

17

notenough.Butthatisnottosaythatwherethesupervisorcondonesorratifies

27

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page28 of 109

asubordinatesdiscriminatoryorpunitiveactionsthesupervisorisfreeof

Bivenssreach.Seeid.at683.

II.

AvailabilityofaBivensRemedyforPlaintiffsClaims
UnliketheMDCDefendants,noneoftheDOJDefendantschallengethe

existenceofaBivensremedyintheirbriefstothisCourt.WhiletheDOJ

Defendantsdidraisethisissuebelow,andarerepresentedbyablecounselon

appeal,theyhavechosentonotofferthatargumentnowasafurtherdefenseof

theirvictoryinthedistrictcourt.However,asthereaderwilllaterdiscover,our

dissentingcolleaguemakesmuchofthisdefense,raisingitashermainobjection

10

toourresolutionoftheappeal.GiventheMDCDefendantsarguments,aswell

11

asthedissentsdecisiontopresstheissue,legitimatelynotingthatadistrict

12

courtsjudgmentcanbeaffirmedonanygroundsupportedbytherecord,

13

DissentingOp.,postat7n.4(citingLotesCo.v.HonHaiPrecisionIndus.Co.,753

14

F.3d395,413(2dCir.2014)),wethinkitappropriatetoexplainourconclusion

15

thataBivensremedyisavailablefortheMDCPlaintiffspunitiveconditionsof

16

confinementandstripsearchclaimsagainstboththeDOJandtheMDC

17

Defendants.

28

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page29 of 109

InBivens,403U.S.at388,theSupremeCourtrecognizedforthefirsttime

animpliedprivateactionfordamagesagainstfederalofficersallegedtohave

violatedacitizensconstitutionalrights.Corr.Servs.Corp.v.Malesko,534U.S.

61,66(2001).ThepurposeofBivensistodeterindividualfederalofficersfrom

committingconstitutionalviolations.Id.at70.BecauseaBivensclaimhas

judicialparentage,theSupremeCourthaswarnedthattheBivensremedyisan

extraordinarythingthatshouldrarelyifeverbeappliedinnewcontexts.Arar

v.Ashcroft,585F.3d559,571(2dCir.2009)(enbanc)(internalquotationmarks

omitted).Thus,aBivensremedyisnotavailableforallwhoallegeinjuryfroma

10
11

federalofficersviolationoftheirconstitutionalrights.
InArar,weoutlinedatwostepprocessfordeterminingwhetheraBivens

12

remedyisavailable.First,thecourtmustdeterminewhethertheunderlying

13

claimsextendBivensintoanewcontext.Id.at572.If,andonlyif,theanswer

14

tothisfirststepisyes,thecourtmustthenconsider(a)whetherthereisan

15

alternativeremedialschemeavailabletotheplaintiff,and,evenifthereisnot,

16

(b)whetherspecialfactorscounselhesitationincreatingaBivensremedy.Id.

17

(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted).AsArarnoted,caselaw

18

provideslimitedguidanceregardinghowtodeterminewhetheraclaimpresents

29

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page30 of 109

anewcontextforBivenspurposes.Thus,[w]econstrue[d]thewordcontextas

itiscommonlyusedinlaw:toreflectapotentiallyrecurringscenariothathas

similarlegalandfactualcomponents.Id.

Determiningthecontextofaclaimcanbetricky.TheMDCDefendants

contendthatthecontextofPlaintiffsclaimsisthenationsresponsetoan

unprecedentedterroristattack.ShermanBr.45.TheDOJDefendantsmadea

similarargumentbeforethedistrictcourtinanearlierroundofthislitigation.

SeeTurkmenI,2006WL1662663,at*30.TheMDCDefendants,andthedissent

onbehalfoftheDOJDefendants,contendthatArarsupportsthisview.Butif

10

thatwerethecase,thenwhydidArartakepainstonotethatthecontextof

11

Ararsclaimswasnotthenationscontinuingresponsetoterrorism,buttheacts

12

offederalofficialsincarryingoutArarsextraordinaryrendition?585F.3dat

13

572.Welookedtoboththerightsinjuredandthemechanismoftheinjuryto

14

determinethecontextofArarsclaims.InrejectingtheavailabilityofaBivens

15

remedy,wefocusedonthemechanismofhisinjury:extraordinaryrenditiona

16

distinctphenomenonininternationallawanddeterminedthispresenteda

17

newcontextforBivensbasedclaims.Id.Onlyuponconcludingthat

18

extraordinaryrenditionpresentedanewcontextdidweexaminethepolicy

30

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page31 of 109

concernsandcompetingremedialmeasuresavailabletoArar.Inourview,

settingthecontextoftheBivensclaimshereasthenationalresponseinthewake

of9/11conflatesthetwostepprocessdictatedbythisCourtinArar.Thereasons

whyPlaintiffswereheldattheMDCasiftheyweresuspectedofterrorismdo

notpresentthecontextoftheirconfinementjustasthereasonforArars

extraordinaryrenditiondidnotpresentthecontextofhisclaim.Withoutdoubt,

9/11presentedunrivaledchallengesandsevereexigenciesbutthatdoesnot

changethecontextofPlaintiffsclaims.[M]ostoftherightsthatthe

Plaintiff[s]contend[]wereviolateddonotvarywithsurroundingcircumstances,

10

suchastherightnottobesubjectedtoneedlesslyharshconditionsof

11

confinement,therighttobefreefromtheuseofexcessiveforce,andtherightnot

12

tobesubjectedtoethnicorreligiousdiscrimination.Thestrengthofoursystem

13

ofconstitutionalrightsderivesfromthesteadfastprotectionofthoserightsin

14

bothnormalandunusualtimes.Iqbalv.Hasty(Hasty),490F.3d143,159(2dCir.

15

2007),revdonothergroundssubnom.Iqbal,556U.S.662.

16

Thus,wethinkitplainthattheMDCPlaintiffsconditionsofconfinement

17

claimsaresetinthefollowingcontext:federaldetaineePlaintiffs,housedina

18

federalfacility,allegethatindividualfederalofficerssubjectedthemtopunitive

31

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page32 of 109

conditions.Thiscontexttakesaccountofboththerightsinjured(here,

substantivedueprocessandequalprotectionrights)15andthemechanismof

injury(punitiveconditionswithoutsufficientcause).Theclaimthatindividual

officersviolateddetaineesconstitutionalrightsbysubjectingthemtoharsh

treatmentwithimpermissibleintentorwithoutsufficientcausestandsfirmly

withinafamiliarBivenscontext.BoththeSupremeCourtandthisCircuithave

recognizedaBivensremedyforconstitutionalchallengestoconditionsof

confinement.InCarlsonv.Green,446U.S.14,1720(1980),theSupremeCourt

recognizedanimpliedremedyfortheplaintiffsclaimalleginganEighth

10

Amendmentviolationforprisonermistreatment.Furthermore,inMalesko,in

11

refusingtoextendaBivensremedytoclaimsagainstprivatecorporations

12

housingfederaldetainees,theSupremeCourtobservedindictathat,whileno

TherightsinjuredcomponentofPlaintiffsclaimsfallwithinarecognizedBivens
context.ThisCircuithaspresumedtheavailabilityofaBivensremedyforsubstantive
dueprocessclaimsinseveralcases.SeeArar,585F.3dat598(Sack,J.,dissenting)(citing
cases).Inaddition,theSupremeCourthasacknowledgedtheavailabilityofaBivens
actiontoredressaviolationoftheequalprotectioncomponentoftheDueProcess
ClauseoftheFifthAmendment.Iqbal,556U.S.at675(citingDavisv.Passman,442U.S.
228(1979)).AndwhileitistruethattheSupremeCourthassubsequentlydeclinedto
extendDavistootheremploymentdiscriminationclaims,suchasinChappellv.Wallace,
462U.S.296,30004(1983),theCourtsanalysiswasfocusedonthespecialnatureofthe
employeremployeerelationshipinthemilitaryor,inotherwords,themechanismof
injury.Here,wherethemechanismofinjuryisalsofamiliar,aBivensremedyisplainly
available.
15

32

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page33 of 109

claimwasavailableagainsttheprivatecorporation,afederalprisonerwouldhave

aremedyagainstfederalofficialsforconstitutionalclaims.534U.S.at72.Ifa

federalprisonerinaBOPfacilityallegesaconstitutionaldeprivation,hemay

bringaBivensclaimagainsttheoffendingindividualofficer,subjecttothe

defenseofqualifiedimmunity.Id.TheCourtwentontorecognizethatthe

prisonermaynotbringaBivensclaimagainsttheofficersemployer,theUnited

States,ortheBOP.Id.TheMDCPlaintiffsclaimshereplainlyfollowMaleskos

guidance:theclaimsareraisedagainsttheindividualofficers,bothattheDOJ

andtheMDC,whowereresponsibleforsubjectingthePlaintiffstopunitive

10

conditionsofconfinement.

11

TheSecondCircuithasalsorecognizedtheavailabilityofBivensrelieffor

12

federalprisonershousedinfederalfacilitiesbringingclaimsagainstindividual

13

federalofficers.InThomasv.Ashcroft,470F.3d491,497(2dCir.2006),thisCourt

14

reversedthedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheprisonerplaintiffsBivensclaimfor

15

violationofhisdueprocessrightsagainstsupervisoryprisonofficials.Seealso

16

Tellierv.Fields,280F.3d69,8083(2dCir.2000)(recognizingaBivensremedyfor

17

aclaimofdeprivationofproceduraldueprocessbroughtbyafederalprisoner

18

againstfederalprisonofficials).Furthermore,inHasty,whereweconsidered

33

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page34 of 109

claimsnearlyidenticaltothoseatissueinthiscase,wedidnotsomuchashint

eitherthataBivensremedywasunavailableorthatitsavailabilitywould

constituteanunwarrantedextensionoftheBivensdoctrine.Arar,585F.3dat

597(Sack,J.,dissenting)(discussingHasty,490F.3dat17778).

OursistercircuitshavealsopermittedBivensclaimsforunconstitutional

conditionsofconfinement.InCalev.Johnson,861F.2d943,947(6thCir.1988),

abrogatedonothergroundsbyThaddeusXv.Blatter,175F.3d378(6thCir.1999)(en

banc),theSixthCircuitheldthatfederalcourtshavethejurisdictionalauthority

toentertainaBivensactionbroughtbyafederalprisoner,allegingviolationsof

10

hisrighttosubstantivedueprocess.TheThirdCircuithasalsopermitteda

11

federalinmatetobringacivilrightsactionagainstprisonofficials.SeeBistrianv.

12

Levi,696F.3d352,37275(3dCir.2012)(assumingavailabilityofaBivensremedy

13

forplaintiffsFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessandotherconstitutional

14

claimschallenginghisconditionsofconfinement).

15

Notwithstandingthepersuasiveprecedentsuggestingtheavailabilityofa

16

BivensremedyfortheMDCPlaintiffsconditionsofconfinementclaims,the

17

MDCDefendants,andourdissentingcolleague,arguethattheMDCPlaintiffs

18

claimspresentanewBivenscontextbecausethePlaintiffsareillegalaliens.But

34

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page35 of 109

becausetheMDCPlaintiffsrighttobefreefrompunitiveconditionsof

confinementiscoextensivewiththatofacitizen,theirunlawfulpresenceinthe

UnitedStatesatthetimeofthechallengedconfinementdoesnotplacetheir

standardmistreatmentclaimintoanewcontext.Indeed,theFifthCircuithas

recognizedaBivensclaimraisedbyaMexicannationalforviolationsofher

FourthandFifthAmendmentrightstobefreefromfalseimprisonmentandthe

useofexcessiveforcebylawenforcementpersonnel.SeeMartinezAguerov.

Gonzalez,459F.3d618,625(5thCir.2006).TheNinthCircuithasalsorecognized

aBivensclaimfordueprocessviolationsthatoccurredduringanillegalalien

10

plaintiffsdetention.SeePapav.UnitedStates,281F.3d1004,101011(9thCir.

11

2002).16Thus,weconcludethataBivensremedyisavailableforthePlaintiffs

12

substantivedueprocessandequalprotectionconditionsofconfinementclaims.
OurunderstandingofBivensandthisCourtsdecisioninArardonot

13
14

howeversuggesttheavailabilityofaBivensremedyforthePlaintiffsfree

15

exerciseclaim.ThatclaimthatDefendantsdeliberatelyinterferedwith

WenotethattheNinthCircuithasdeclinedtoprovideillegalalienswithanimplied
Bivensremedyforunlawfuldetentionduringdeportationproceedings.Mirmehdiv.
UnitedStates,689F.3d975,98183(9thCir.2012).Ofcourse,thatdecisionisplainly
inappositeherewheretheMDCPlaintiffsdonotchallengethefactthattheywere
detained,butrathertheconditionsinwhichtheyweredetained.
16

35

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page36 of 109

Plaintiffsreligiouspracticesby:(1)denyingthemtimelyaccesstocopiesofthe

Koran;(2)denyingthemHalalfood;and(3)failingtostopMDCstafffrom

interferingwithPlaintiffsprayersdoesnotfallwithinafamiliarBivenscontext.

Here,itistherightinjuredPlaintiffsfreeexerciserightandnotthe

mechanismofinjurythatplacesPlaintiffsclaimsinanewBivenscontext.

Indeed,theSupremeCourthasnotfoundanimplieddamagesremedyunder

theFreeExerciseClauseandhasdeclinedtoextendBivenstoaclaimsounding

intheFirstAmendment.Iqbal,556U.S.at675(citingBushv.Lucas,462U.S.367

(1983)).Accordingly,weagreewiththeMDCDefendantsthatPlaintiffsfree

10
11

exerciseclaimshouldhavebeendismissed.
ButtheMDCPlaintiffsclaimthattheyweresubjectedtounlawfulstrip

12

searchesfallswithinanestablishedBivenscontext:federaldetaineeplaintiffs,

13

housedinafederalfacility,allegethatindividualfederalofficerssubjectedthem

14

tounreasonablesearchesinviolationoftheFourthAmendment.TheMDC

15

DefendantsfailtopersuasivelyexplainwhyrecognizingtheMDCPlaintiffs

16

unlawfulstripsearchclaimwouldextendBivenstoanewcontext.Indeed,the

17

rightviolatedcertainlyfallswithinarecognizedBivenscontext:theFourth

18

AmendmentisatthecoreoftheBivensjurisprudence,asBivensitselfconcerneda

36

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page37 of 109

FourthAmendmentclaim.InBivens,theplaintiffbroughtaFourthAmendment

claimforthedefendantsuseofunreasonableforcewithoutprobablecause,

resultingintheplaintiffsunlawfularrest.403U.S.at38990;seealsoGrohv.

Ramirez,540U.S.551,555(2004)(recognizingtheavailabilityofaBivensremedy

foraFourthAmendmentclaimofanunreasonablesearch,asaresultofafacially

invalidwarrant).ThisCircuithasalsopermittedBivensreliefforFourth

Amendmentclaimsinvolvingunreasonablesearches.See,e.g.,Castrov.United

States,34F.3d106,107(2dCir.1994).Andthemechanismoftheviolationhere,

anunreasonablesearchperformedbyaprisonofficialhasalsobeenrecognized

10

bythisCircuit.Indeed,inArar,westatedthat[i]nthesmallnumberofcontexts

11

inwhichcourtshaveimpliedaBivensremedy,ithasoftenbeeneasytoidentify

12

boththelinebetweenconstitutionalandunconstitutionalconduct,andthe

13

alternativecoursewhichofficersshouldhavepursued....[T]heimmigration

14

officerwhosubjectedanalientomultiplestripsearcheswithoutcauseshould

15

haveleftthealieninhisclothes.585F.3dat580;seealsoHasty,490F.3dat170

16

73(assumingtheexistenceofaBivensremedytochallengestripsearchesunder

17

theFourthAmendment).

37

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page38 of 109

Accordingly,weconcludethataBivensremedyisavailableforPlaintiffs

1
2

conditionsofconfinementclaims,underboththeDueProcessandEqual

ProtectionClausesoftheFifthAmendment,andFourthAmendment

unreasonableandpunitivestripsearchesclaim.17However,Plaintiffsfree

exerciseclaimwouldrequireextendingBivenstoanewcontext,amovewe

declinetomakeabsentguidancefromtheSupremeCourt.

III.

SubstantiveDueProcessConditionsofConfinement

TheMDCPlaintiffsallegethattheharshconditionsofconfinementinthe

8
9

Claim1:

MDCviolatedtheirFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessrightsandthatall

10

Defendantsareliableforthisharm.18Plaintiffspresentdistincttheoriesof

11

liabilityastotheDOJandMDCDefendants.

12

A. ApplicableLegalStandard

13

TheFifthAmendmentsDueProcessClauseforbidssubjectingpretrial

14

detaineestopunitiverestrictionsorconditions.SeeBellv.Wolfish(Wolfish),441

BecauseweconcludethatPlaintiffssubstantivedueprocess,equalprotection,and
unreasonablepunitivestripsearchesclaimsdonotextendBivenstoanewcontext,we
neednotaddresswhetherthereisanalternativeremedialschemeavailabletothe
plaintifforwhetherspecialfactorscounselhesitationincreatingaBivensremedy.
Arar,585F.3dat572(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted).
18TurkmenandSachdeva,thePassaicPlaintiffs,donotbringasubstantivedueprocess
conditionsofconfinementclaimorunreasonablestripsearchclaim(Claims1and6).
17

38

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page39 of 109

U.S.520,535&n.16(1979).19PlaintiffsmustplausiblypleadthatDefendants,(1)

withpunitiveintent,(2)personallyengagedinconductthatcausedthe

challengedconditionsofconfinement.Seeid.at538;seealsoIqbal,556U.S.at676

77.Absentanexpressedintenttopunish,Wolfish,441U.S.at538,wemayonly

inferthatDefendantsactedwithpunitiveintentifthechallengedconditions

werenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoalif[theywere]arbitraryor

purposeless,id.at539.

B. TheDOJDefendants

WhiletheDOJDefendantsdonotraiseanoBivensclaimdefense,theydo

10

forcefullycontestliabilityherewithpowerfulpostIqbalassertionsthatthe

11

formerAttorneyGeneralandFBIDirectordidnotthemselvesrequireorspecify

12

anyoftheparticularconditionssetforthinthecomplaint.Andtheycannotbe

13

heldliableonwhatamountstoatheoryofrespondeatsuperiorfortheactionsof

14

otherswhomayhaveimposedthoseconditions.Ashcroft&MuellerBr.10.

15

TheycontendthatbecausetheformerAttorneyGeneralsinitialdetentionorder

16

wasconstitutional,havingbeenapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinIqbal,theDOJ

Thepartieshavenotarguedforadifferentstandardinthisappeal.Accordingly,we
donotaddresswhethertherightsofcivilimmigrationdetaineesshouldbegovernedby
astandardthatisevenmoreprotectivethanthestandardthatappliestopretrial
criminaldetainees.
19

39

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page40 of 109

Defendantswereentitledtopresumethatthefaciallyconstitutionalpolicy

wouldinturnbeimplementedlawfully....Id.at9.Weagree...toapoint.

TheMDCPlaintiffsconcedethattheDOJDefendantsdidnotcreatethe

particularconditionsinquestion.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat326n.4;see

alsoOIGReportat19,11213(reportingthat,atleastinitially,BOPofficials

determinedtheconditionsunderwhichdetaineeswouldbeheld,without

directionfromtheFBIorelsewhere).TheMDCPlaintiffssimilarlyfailtoplead

thatAshcroftsinitialarrestanddetentionmandaterequiredsubordinatesto

applyexcessivelyrestrictiveconditionstocivildetaineesagainstwhomthe

10

governmentlackedindividualizedsuspicionofterrorism.Giventhemandates

11

facialvalidity,theDOJDefendantshadarighttopresumethatsubordinates

12

wouldcarryitoutinaconstitutionalmanner.SeeAlJundiv.EstateofRockefeller,

13

885F.2d1060,106566(2dCir.1989).Butthatisnottheendofthematter.

14

TheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantswereaware

15

thatillegalalienswerebeingdetainedinpunitiveconditionsofconfinementin

16

NewYorkandfurtherknewthattherewasnosuggestionthatthosedetainees

17

weretiedtoterrorismexceptforthefactthattheywere,orwereperceivedtobe,

40

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page41 of 109

AraborMuslim.20TheMDCPlaintiffsfurtherallegethatwhileknowingthese

facts,theDOJDefendantswereresponsibleforadecisiontomergetheNewYork

ListwiththenationalINSList,whichcontainedthenamesofdetaineeswhose

detentionwasdependentnotonlyontheirillegalimmigrantstatusandtheir

perceivedAraborMuslimaffiliation,butalsoasuspicionthattheywere

connectedtoterroristactivities.ThemergerensuredthattheMDCPlaintiffs

wouldcontinuetobeconfinedinpunitiveconditions.Thisissufficienttoplead

aFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessviolation.21Giventhelackof

Thedissentcountersthat[t]hisisnotapparentintherecord,citingPlaintiff
BajracharyasvideotapingofabuildinginQueensasevidenceofthatPlaintiffspossible
tietoterrorism.DissentingOp.,postat43n.28.Thedissentmakesnomention,of
course,ofPlaintiffKhalifa,whowastoldthattheFBIwasonlyinterestedinhis
roommates,butwhowasarrestedandthendetainedintheADMAXSHUanyway,
Compl.197;orofPlaintiffMehmood,whowasarrestedanddetainedintheADMAX
SHUinplaceofhiswife,inwhomtheFBIhadapparentlyexpressedinterest,butwho
wasstillbreastfeedingtheirson,id.159.Thedissentfurtherclaimsthatdetainees
werenotsenttotheADMAXSHUbasedontheirperceivedraceorreligion,butasthe
OIGReportstatesbasedonwhethertheyweredesignatedofhighinteresttothe
PENTTBOMinvestigation.DissentingOp.,postat44n.28(citingOIGReportat18,111).
But,asthedissentconcedes,id.,PlaintiffswellpleadedComplaintspecifically
contradictsthispoint:theMDCPlaintiffsweredetainedintheADMAXSHUeven
thoughtheyhadnotbeenclassifiedhighinterest,Compl.4.
21Weacknowledge,asthedissentpointsout,thattheMDCPlaintiffsdidnotadvance
thelistsmergertheorybeforethisCourtorthedistrictcourt.DissentingOp.,postat
43n.28.Rather,theystructuredtheComplainttochallengeAshcroftsarrestand
detentionmandateasinitiallyformulatedandgenerallyapplied.Inexaminingthe
Complaintssufficiency,wehavebeenclearthatthepleadingsareinadequateto
challengethevalidityofthepolicyabinitio,butdostateaclaimwithregardtothe
mergerdecision,aneventthatPlaintiffsexplicitlyreferenceintheComplaint.See
20

41

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page42 of 109

individualizedsuspicion,thedecisiontomergethelistswasnotreasonably

relatedtoalegitimategoal.SeeWolfish,441U.S.at539.Theonlyreasonwhy

theMDCPlaintiffswereheldasiftheyweresuspectedofterrorismwasbecause

theywere,orappearedtobe,AraborMuslim.Weconcludethatthisplausibly

pleadspunitiveintent.Id.

6
7

1. PunitiveConditionsofConfinement
ContrarytothedistrictcourtsconclusionthatPlaintiffsfailedtoallege

thattheDOJ[D]efendantswereevenawareof[the]conditions,TurkmenIII,915

F.Supp.2dat340,theComplaintandtheOIGReporteachcontainallegationsof

10

theDOJDefendantsknowledgeofthechallengedconditions.Plaintiffsallege,

11

interalia,thatMuellerranthe9/11investigationoutofFBIHeadquarters;and

12

thatAshcroft,Mueller[,]andZiglarreceiveddetaileddailyreportsofthearrests

13

anddetentions,Compl.47;seealsoid.6365.

14

TheOIGReportmakesplaintheplausibilityofPlaintiffsallegations.The

15

[DOJ]wasawareoftheBOPsdecisiontohousetheSeptember11detaineesin

16

highsecuritysectionsinvariousBOPfacilities.OIGReportat19.TheDeputy

17

ChiefofStafftoAshcrofttoldtheOIGthatanallegationofmistreatmentwas

Compl.47;Pls.Br.38.Sufficiencyanalysisrequiresacarefulparsingofthe
Complaintandthatisallthathasoccurredhere.

42

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page43 of 109

calledtotheAttorneyGeneralsattention.Id.at20.AndBOPDirectorKathy

HawkSawyerstatedthatintheweeksfollowing9/11,theDeputyAttorney

GeneralsChiefofStaffandthePrincipalAssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneral

calledher...withconcernsaboutdetaineesabilitytocommunicatebothwith

thoseoutsidethefacilityandwithotherinmates,id.at112,whichshesaid

confirmedforherthatthedecisiontohousedetaineesintherestrictive

conditionsoftheADMAXSHUwasappropriate,id.at112113.Thissupports

thereasonableinferencethatnotonlywasAshcroftsofficeawareofsomeofthe

conditionsimposed,butaffirmativelysupportedthem.Seealsoid.at113(DOJ

10

officialstoldSawyertotake[BOP]policiestotheirlegallimit).22Furthermore,

11

theOIGReportalsomakesclearthatconditionsintheADMAXSHUbeganto

Thedissentattemptstominimizetheforceofthesecomments,claimingthat
communicationsaboutaconditionofconfinementthatwasliftedbeforethemerger
decisioncannotsupportaninferenceastowhattheDOJDefendantsknewaboutthe
conditionsintheADMAXSHU.DissentingOp.,postat5657.Simplyput,we
disagree.Thefactremainsthataconditionofconfinement,lesssevereandabusivethan
theconditionsatissuehere,garneredtheattentionofseniorofficials;itstandstoreason
thatconditionsthatkeptdetaineesintheircellsfortwentythreehoursaday,denied
themsleepbybrightlights,andinvolvedexcessivestripsearchesandphysicalabuse,
wouldhavecometotheDOJDefendantsattention.
22

43

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page44 of 109

receivemediaattentionsoonafterdetentionsbegan,seeid.at2,5;23thus,itseems

implausiblethatthepublicsconcernsdidnotreachtheDOJDefendantsdesks.
Ofcourse,wecannotsayforcertainthatdailyreportsgiventoAshcroft

3
4

andMuellerdetailedtheconditionsattheADMAXSHUorthatthedaily

meetingsoftheSIOCWorkingGroup(containingrepresentativesfromeachof

theDOJDefendantsoffices)discussedthoseconditions.Butonreviewofa

motiontodismiss,Plaintiffsneednotprovetheirallegations;theymustplausibly

pleadthem.Ataminimum,asteadystreamofinformationregardingthe

challengedconditionsflowedbetweentheBOPandseniorDOJofficials.Given

10

theMDCPlaintiffsallegations,themediacoverageofconditionsattheMDC,

11

andtheDOJDefendantsannouncedcentralrolesinPENTTBOM,itseemstous

12

plausiblethatinformationconcerningconditionsattheMDC,whichheldeighty

13

fourofthe9/11detainees,reachedtheDOJDefendants.24

See,e.g.,NeilA.Lewis,ANationChallenged:TheDetainees;DetentionsAfterAttacksPass
1,000,U.S.Says,N.Y.TIMES,Oct.30,2001,availableat
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/us/anationchallengedthedetaineesdetentions
afterattackspass1000ussays.html(citingcommonnewsreportsofabuseinvolv[ing]
mistreatmentofprisonersofMiddleEasternbackgroundatjails).
24Furthermore,theOIGreportswereissuedpursuanttotheOfficeoftheInspector
GeneralsresponsibilitiesundertheUSAPATRIOTAct,whichwasenactedonOctober
26,2001.SeeOIGReportat3n.6.ThePATRIOTAct,Section1001,reads:The
InspectorGeneraloftheDepartmentofJusticeshalldesignateoneofficialwhoshall
(1)reviewinformationandreceivecomplaintsallegingabusesofcivilrightsandcivil
23

44

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page45 of 109

1
2

2. LackofIndividualizedSuspicion
TheMDCPlaintiffsalsoplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantswere

awarethattheFBIhadnotdevelopedanyconnectionbetweensomeofthe

detaineesandterroristactivities.TheComplaintandOIGReportbothmake

clearthattheNewYorkFBIarrestedalloutofstatusaliensencountered

evencoincidentallyinthecourseofinvestigatingaPENTTBOMlead.OIG

Reportat4142,6970.Thesearresteesweredeemedofinterestforpurposes

oftheholduntilclearedpolicy,regardlessofthestrengthoftheevidenceorthe

originofthelead.Id.at41.Thosedeemedofhighinterestweresenttothe

10

MDCsADMAXSHU,id.at111,buttherewaslittleconsistencyorprecisionto

11

theprocessthatresultedindetaineesbeinglabeledhighinterest,id.at158.25

libertiesbyemployeesandofficialsoftheDepartmentofJustice.PATRIOTAct,Pub.
L.No.10756,1001,115Stat.272(2001).OnOctober30,2001,theOIGrevieweda
newspaperarticleinwhichaSeptember11detaineeallegedhewasphysicallyabused
whenhearrivedattheMDConOctober4,2001.Basedontheallegationsinthearticle,
theOIGsInvestigationsDivisioninitiatedaninvestigationintothematter.OIG
Reportat144.ItseemstousmostplausiblethatiftheOIGwhoisunderthe
authority,direction,andcontroloftheAttorneyGeneralwithrespecttoauditsor
investigations,5U.S.C.App.38E(a)(1)wasawareofthechallengedconditionsat
theMDC,theDOJDefendantswereaswell.
25Evensomedetaineeswhowerenotlabeledhighinterestwerenonethelesssentto
theMDCsADMAXSHU.Forexample,Abbasi,Bajracharya,Mehmood,andKhalifa[]
wereplacedintheADMAXSHUeventhoughtheyhadnotbeenclassifiedhigh
interestanddespitetheabsenceofanyinformationindicatingtheyweredangerousor
involvedinterrorism,oranyotherlegitimatereasonforsuchtreatment.Compl.4.

45

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page46 of 109

EveniftheDOJDefendantswerenotinitiallyawareofthispractice,the

ComplaintandOIGreportssupportthereasonableinferencethatAshcroftand

Muellerlearnedofitwithinweeksof9/11.TheComplaintclearlyallegesthatthe

DOJDefendantsagreedthatindividualsforwhomtheFBIcouldonlyarticulate

animmigrationlawviolationasareasonfordetentionandforwhomtheFBI

hadnotdevelopedanyreliabletietoterrorismwouldcontinuetobetreatedas

iftheFBIhadreasontobelievethedetaineeshadtiestoterroristactivity.Compl.

67.PlaintiffspointtothedetaileddailyreportsthattheDOJDefendants

receivedregardingarrestsanddetentionsandallegethattheDOJDefendants

10

wereawarethattheFBIhadnoinformationtyingPlaintiffsandclassmembers

11

toterrorismpriortotreatingthemasofinteresttothePENTTBOM

12

investigation.Id.47.Indeed,theyclaimthatAshcroft,inparticular,insisted

13

onregular,detailedreportingonarrests;theyallegethathereceivedadaily

14

AttorneyGeneralsReportonpersonsarrested.Id.63.Theyfurtherallege

15

thatitwasZiglarwhowasultimatelyresponsibleforprovidingmuchofthis

16

informationwhichhegleanedfromhistwicedailybriefingswithhisstaff

17

regardingthe9/11detentionstoAshcroft,indicatingthathetoowasawareof

18

thelackofindividualizedsuspicion.Id.64.

46

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page47 of 109

Onceagain,theOIGreportsalsosupporttheMDCPlaintiffsallegation

thattheDOJDefendantsbecameawareofthelackofindividualizedsuspicion

forsomedetaineesheldinthechallengedconditionsofconfinement.TheOIG

Reportstatesthat[a]varietyofINS,FBI,and[DOJ]officialswhoworkedon

the[]September11detaineecasestoldtheOIGthatitsoonbecameevidentthat

manyofthepeoplearrestedduringthePENTTBOMinvestigationmightnot

haveanexustoterrorism.OIGReportat45.OtherDOJofficialsalsostated

thatitsoonbecameclearthatonlysomeofthedetaineeswereofgenuine

investigativeinterestasopposedtoaliensidentifiedbytheFBIasofinterest

10

forwhomtheFBIhadnosuspicionofaconnectiontotheattacksorterrorismin

11

general.Id.at47.

12

TheOIGReportsupportsthereasonableinferencethatthisinformation,

13

knownbyotherDOJofficials,cametotheattentionoftheDOJDefendants.In

14

particular,theOIGReportspecifiesthatAshcroftandMuellerwereinvolvedina

15

continuousmeetingforthefirstfewmonthsafter9/11,atwhichtheissueof

16

holdingaliensuntiltheywereclearedwasdiscussed.Id.at3940.

17

Furthermore,theOIGReportmakesclearthattheSIOCWorkingGroup,

18

containingrepresentativesfromtheofficesofeachoftheDOJDefendants,was

47

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page48 of 109

awareofthelackofevidencetyingdetaineestoterrorism.Id.at5357.Aswe

havealreadynoted,theOIGReportdetailshowatsomepointinOctober2001,

theSIOCWorkingGrouplearnedabouttheNewYorkListandthatofficialsat

theINS,FBI,and[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,amongotherthings,whetherthe

alienshadanynexustoterrorism.Id.at53.Clearlythiscreatedamajor

problemfortheDOJ.TheexistenceoftheNewYorkListsuddenlypresentedthe

possibilityofmorethandoublingthenumberofdetaineessubjecttothehold

untilclearedpolicy.26ItseemsquiteplausiblethatDOJofficialswouldconfer

withtheAttorneyGeneralandtheDirectoroftheFBI(itwas,afterall,hisagents

10

whowerearrestingoutofstatusArabandMuslimaliensandholdingthemasif

11

theywereofinterestwithoutanysuspicionofterroristconnections)aboutthe

12

problemoftheNewYorkListandthehundredsofdetaineespickedupin

13

contraventionofAshcroftsstatedpolicy.Indeed,itseemstousimplausiblethey

14

didnot.Finally,theOIGReportonceagainmakesclearthatmediareports

15

regardingallegationsofmistreatmentofdetaineesallegedthatdetainees

InOctoberandNovemberof2001,theNewYorkListcontainedapproximately300
detaineeswhiletheINSListfortherestofthenationcontainedonly200detainees.OIG
Reportat54.
26

48

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page49 of 109

remainedindetentioneventhoughtheyhadnoinvolvementinterrorism.Id.at

2,5.

3
4

3. TheDecisiontoMergetheLists
Plaintiffsplausiblypleadthat,despitetheDOJDefendantsknowledgeof

theconditionsattheADMAXSHUandthelackofanyformofverifiedsuspicion

foralargenumberofthosedetaineesontheNewYorkList,Ashcroftapproved,

oratleastendorsed,adecisiontomergetheNewYorkList.TheMDCPlaintiffs

contendthathedidsonotwithstandingvocaloppositionfromvariousinternal

sources.TheComplaintclearlyallegesthat[a]gainstsignificantinternal

10

criticismfromINSagentsandotherfederalemployeesinvolvedinthesweeps,

11

Ashcroftorderedthat,despiteacompletelackofanyinformationorastatement

12

ofFBIinterest,allsuchPlaintiffsandclassmembers[ontheNewYorkList]be

13

detaineduntilclearedandotherwisetreatedasofinterest.Compl.47.By

14

takingthisaction,AshcroftensuredthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNew

15

YorkListwouldbeplacedin,orremaindetainedin,thechallengedconditionsof

16

confinement.

17
18

Ourdissentingcolleaguelevelsaconcernastotheimportofthemergerof
thelistsandcountersthatnothingintheOIGreportsconfirmsAshcrofts

49

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page50 of 109

personalknowledgeofthecorrelationbetweenthemergerofthelistsandthe

lackofindividualizedsuspicionastotheMDCPlaintiffs.Thedissentcontends

that,becausePlaintiffsallegationsarenotbasedonpersonalknowledge,thereis

nofactualbasisintherecordforthem.DissentingOp.,postat45.Trueenough

thatAshcroftdidnotacknowledgethathewasawareofthemergerofthelists

anditsimplicationfortheMDCPlaintiffs,nordidhetakeresponsibilityforit.

ButthenagainareviewoftheOIGReportgivesnoindicationthatanybody

askedhim.

TheabsenceofaninquirytotheformerAttorneyGeneralisnotacriticism

10

oftheOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralsmethods,butasimplerecognitionofa

11

factthatpointsoutakeydifferencebetweenourviewoftheOIGreportsand

12

thatofthedissent.Forus,theOIGreportsprovidecontextfortheallegationsof

13

theComplaint.Seesupranote6.However,itwouldbeamistaketothinkofthe

14

OIGreportsasarepositoryofallrelevantfactsofthattroubledtime;butthatis

15

exactlywhatthedissentseemsinclinedtodo.Thedissentmeasuresplausibility

16

bytheabsenceorpresenceoffactfindingsintheOIGreports.Thus,forthe

17

dissent,thefactthattheAttorneyGeneralmaynothavebeenquestionedis

18

confirmationthatheknewnothing.Thereportsmakenosuchassertion.

50

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page51 of 109

ItmaybethatfollowingdiscoveryitwillbeclearthatAshcroftwasnot

responsibleforthemergerdecision(norwasMuellerorZiglar),butthatisnot

thequestionatthepleadingstage.ThequestioniswhethertheMDCPlaintiffs

plausiblypleadthatAshcroftwasresponsible.Giventheimportanceofthe

mergeranditsimplicationsforhowhislawfuloriginalorderwasbeingcarried

out,wethinktheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblyallegethathewas.

Indeed,theOIGReportsupportstheMDCPlaintiffsallegationthat

Ashcroftwasresponsibleforthemergerdecision.AnincidentatoneoftheNew

YorkListmeetingsprovidesadditionalcontextthatsupportsthatallegation.At

10

theNovember2,2001meeting,thegroupdiscussedthenecessityofCIAchecks,

11

oftenaprerequisitetoa9/11detaineesreleasefromdetention.OIGReportat55.

12

Inresponse,StuartLevey,theAssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneralresponsiblefor

13

oversightofimmigrationissues,statedthathehadtocheckbefore

14

communicatingadecisiononwhetheranydetaineescouldbereleasedwithout

15

theCIAcheck.Id.at56.Thisresponsecouldreasonablyindicate(a)alackof

16

authoritytorespondtothequestion,or(b)thatLeveywantedtoconsiderother

17

viewsbeforemakingthedecision.Becauseeitherisplausible,itisirrelevantthat

51

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page52 of 109

onlyinference(a)supportstheconclusionthatLeveycouldnotanswerthe

questiononhisownandhadtotakeittomoreseniorofficials.27
Furthermore,inlateNovember2001,whentheINSChiefofStaff

3
4

approachedLeveyabouttheCIAcheckpolicy,Leveysaidthathedidnotfeel

comfortablemakingthedecisionabout[the]requesttochangetheCIAcheck

policywithoutadditionalinput.Id.at62.ItseemstousthatifLeveywasnot

comfortablechangingtheCIAcheckpolicywithoutinputfrommoresenior

officials,hecertainlywouldnothavebeencomfortablemakingthedecisionon

hisowntodoublethenumberofdetaineessubjecttothatpolicyinthefirst

10

instance.28

TheOIGReportstatesthatLeveyspecificallyconsultedDavidLaufman,theDeputy
AttorneyGeneralsChiefofStaff.OIGReportat62.Thedissenttakesthisasdefinitive
proofthatAshcroftwasnotconsultedonthis,orthemerger,decision.DissentingOp.,
postat4749.ThedissentmischaracterizesourreferencetotheCIAchecksdecision.
WedonotcontendthatLeveyconsultedAshcroftaboutthatdecision,nordoweneed
to.Inourview,thefactthatLeveyspoketoLaufmanaboutthatdecisionisnottheend
ofthematter;indeed,theonlyrelevanceoftheCIAchecksdecision,period,isthat
Leveywasnotcapableofmakingitonhisown,suggestingthathealsowouldnotbe
abletomakethelistmergerdecisiononhisown.
28Indeed,ZiglartoldtheOIGthathecontactedAshcroftsofficeonNovember7,2001,
todiscussconcernsabouttheprocessofclearingnamesfromtheINSCustodyList,
especiallytheimpactthatmergingthelistswouldhaveonthatprocessandsaidthat
basedontheseandothercontactswithseniorDepartmentofficials,hebelievedthe
DepartmentwasfullyawareoftheINSsconcerns.OIGReportat6667.Thisalso
suggeststhatLeveyhadcommunicatedthoseconcernstoAshcroft,whononetheless
madethedecisiontomergethelists.
27

52

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page53 of 109

ThedissentarguesthattheOIGReportforeclosestheplausibilityofthe

1
2

allegationthatLeveybroughtthelistmergerdecisiontoAshcroftbecause

Leveymadethelistsmergerdecision[a]ttheconclusionofthe[November2]

meetingatwhichthesubjectwasfirstraisedtohim.DissentingOp.,postat49

(quotingOIGReportat56).ButtheOIGReportdoesnotindicatethatthemerger

issuewasfirstraisedtoLeveyattheNovember2meeting.Rather,theOIG

ReportmakesclearthattheissueoftheNewYorkListwasdiscoveredin

October2001,29andthatthedecisiontomergethelistswascommunicatedatthe

November2meeting.Thus,surelyitisplausiblethatLeveyconsultedwithmore

10

seniorofficials,includingAshcroft,priortothatmeeting.30Ofcourse,discovery

11

mayshowthatLeveywassolelyresponsibleforthedecision.But,again,the

WhilethedissentsobservationthatLeveydidnotattendtheOctober22,2001
meetingduringwhichtheproblemspresentedbytheNewYorkListwerediscussed
isaccurate,itisalsoirrelevant.SeeDissentingOp.,postat4950(quotingOIGReportat
55).WedonotcontendthatLeveylearnedabouttheNewYorkListattheOctober22
meeting,butsimplythathelearnedaboutitbeforetheNovember2meeting,givinghim
timetoconsultwithmoreseniorofficials,includingAshcroft,beforecommunicatinga
decisionatthatNovembermeeting.Indeed,onewouldthinkthatLeveywouldnot
attendtheNovember2meetingwithoutknowingitsagenda.
30ThedissentchallengesthesufficiencyofPlaintiffsallegationsandourreadingof
themaswhollyspeculative.DissentingOp.,postat48.Ofcourse,Plaintiffshaveno
wayofknowingwhatLeveyandAshcroftdiscussed;nordowe.Iqbaldoesnotrequire
asmuch,butrathersufficientfactualmatter,acceptedastruetoallowthecourtto
drawthereasonableinferencethatAshcroftwasultimatelyresponsibleforthedecision.
556U.S.at678.WebelievethatPlaintiffshavemetthisburden.
29

53

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page54 of 109

questioniswhetherPlaintiffsallegationssupporttheinferencethatthedecision

wasAshcrofts;theydo.

TheMDCPlaintiffsallegationsagainstMuellerandZiglararealso

sufficient.TheComplaintalleges,interalia,thatAshcroftmadethedecisionto

mergethelistsinspiteofthelackofindividualizedsuspicionlinkingtheMDC

PlaintiffstoterrorismandthatMuellerandZiglarwerefullyinformedofthis

decision,andcompliedwithit.Compl.47;seealsoid.5557,67.Mueller

andZiglararenotexculpatedfromthisclaimmerelybecausePlaintiffsallege

thattheycompliedwith,asopposedtoordered,thelistmerger.Plaintiffs

10

plausiblypleadthatbothwereawarethattheseparatelistcontaineddetainees

11

forwhomtheFBIhadassertednointerestandthatsubjectingthemtothe

12

challengedconditionswouldbefaciallyunreasonable.Evenifanofficialisnot

13

thesourceofachallengedpolicy,thatofficialcanbeheldpersonallyliablefor

14

constitutionalviolationsstemmingfromtheexecutionofhissuperiorsordersif

15

thoseordersarefaciallyinvalidorclearlyillegal.See,e.g.,Varronev.Bilotti,123

16

F.3d75,81(2dCir.1997)(grantingdefendantsqualifiedimmunitywherethere

17

wasnoclaimthattheorderwasfaciallyinvalidorobviouslyillegal).Inthis

18

instance,PlaintiffsplausiblyallegethatAshcroftsdecisionwasfaciallyinvalid;it

54

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page55 of 109

wouldbeunreasonableforMuellerandZiglartoconcludethatholdingordinary

civildetaineesunderthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailablewas

lawful.

4. PunitiveIntent

TheMDCPlaintiffsmustshownotonlythattheDOJDefendantsknewof

andapprovedcontinueduseoftheADMAXSHU,butalsothattheydidsowith

punitiveintentthattheyendorsedtheuseofthoseconditionswithanintentto

punishtheMDCPlaintiffs.Federalcourtshavelongrecognizedthatpunitive

intentisnotoftenadmitted.TheSupremeCourthasnotedthatitcanbeinferred

10

iftheconditionsofconfinementarenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal.

11

Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Iftheconditionsunderwhichoneisheldhaveno

12

reasonableconnectiontoalegitimategoalofthestate,thenonelogical

13

assumptionisthattheyareimposedfornootherpurposethantopunish.Seeid.

14

TheDOJDefendantsarguethateveniftheyknewoftheplightoftheMDC

15

Plaintiffs,thedecisiontocontinuetheirconfinementattheMDCunder

16

exceptionallyharshconditionswasmotivatedbynationalsecurityconcernsa

17

legitimateworryduringthedaysfollowingthe9/11attacksandnotsome

18

animusdirectedattheMDCPlaintiffs.Theyseemtoimplythatoncenational

55

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page56 of 109

securityconcernsbecomeareasonforholdingsomeone,thereisnoneedto

showaconnectionbetweenthoseconcernsandthecaptiveotherthanthatthe

captivesharescommontraitsoftheterrorist:illegalimmigrantstatusanda

perceivedAraborMuslimaffiliation.Indeed,ourdissentingcolleagueasserts

thatbecausetheMDCPlaintiffswere,orappearedtobe,membersofthe

groupAraborMuslimmalesthatwastargetedforrecruitmentbyalQaeda

thattheycouldbeheldintheADMAXSHUwithoutanyreasonablesuspicionof

terroristactivity.DissentingOp.,postat6465,7677.Underthisview,theMDC

Plaintiffswerenotheldwithpunitiveintentbecausetherewasnowaytoknow

10

thattheywerenotinvolvedinterroristactivities.SimplybeingintheUnited

11

Statesillegallyandbeing,orappearingtobe,AraborMuslimwasenoughto

12

justifydetentioninthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailable.

13

Indeed,Leveyadmittedthatthedecisiontomergethelists,ensuringthatsome

14

ofthe9/11detaineeswouldbesubjecttothechallengedharshconditionsof

15

confinement,wasmadebecausehewantedtoerronthesideofcautionsothata

16

terroristwouldnotbereleasedbymistake.OIGReportat56.

17
18

Thisargumentrestsontheassumptionthatifanindividualwasanoutof
statusAraborMuslim,andsomeonecalledtheFBIforeventhemostabsurd

56

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page57 of 109

reason,thatindividualwasconsideredapossiblethreattonationalsecurity.It

presumes,inessence,thatalloutofstatusArabsorMuslimswerepotential

terroristsuntilprovenotherwise.Itisbuiltonaperceptionofaraceandfaith

thathasnobasisinfact.Therewasnolegitimategovernmentalpurposein

holdingsomeoneinthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailable

simplybecausehehappenedtobeor,worseyet,appearedtobeArabor

Muslim.

8
9

Tobeclear,itisnosurprisenorisitconstitutionallyproblematicthat
theenforcementofourimmigrationlawsinthewakeof9/11hadadisparate,

10

incidentalimpactonArabMuslims.Iqbal,556U.S.at682.Andwedonot

11

contendthatSupremeCourt,orourown,precedentrequiresindividualized

12

suspiciontosubjectdetaineestogenerallyrestrictiveconditionsofconfinement;

13

restrictionisanincidentofdetention.Rather,wesimplyacknowledgethatifa

14

restrictionorconditionisnotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoalifitis

15

arbitraryorpurposelessacourtpermissiblymayinferthatthepurposeofthe

16

governmentalactionispunishmentthatmaynotconstitutionallybeinflicted

17

upondetaineesquadetainees.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Webelieve,then,that

18

thechallengedconditionskeepingdetaineesintheircellsfortwentythree

57

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page58 of 109

hoursaday,constructivelydenyingthemrecreationandexposingthemtothe

elements,stripsearchingthemwhenevertheywereremovedfromorreturnedto

theircells,denyingthemsleepbybrightlightswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoa

legitimategoal,butratherwerepunitiveandunconstitutional.
Whilenationalsecurityconcernscouldjustifydetainingthoseindividuals

5
6

withsuspectedtiestoterrorisminthesechallengedconditionsforthelitanyof

reasonsarticulatedbythedissent,seeDissentingOp.,postat6768,those

concernsdonotjustifydetainingindividualssolelyonthebasisofan

immigrationviolationandtheirperceivedraceorreligioninthosesame

10

conditions.Individualizedsuspicionisrequiredherebecause,absentsome

11

indicationthatthedetaineeshadatietoterrorism,therestrictionsorconditions

12

oftheADMAXSHUwerearbitraryorpurposeless.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.31

Thedissentcitesseveralcasesthatitclaimsdemonstratethatindividualizedsuspicion
isnotrequiredforimposingrestrictiveconditionsofconfinement.DissentingOp.,post
at6263.Wedonotdisagree:individualizedsuspicionisnotrequiredtoimpose
conditionsthatarereasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjective.Wolfish,
441U.S.at539.Thus,ineachofthecasescitedbythedissent,ratherthanannounce
thatindividualizedsuspicionwasnotrequired,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthatthe
restrictionsatissueineachofthosecaseswererelatedtothelegitimategoalofprison
securityand,therefore,werenotpunitive.Thus,thecasescitedbythedissentdonot
changeourconclusionhere,wherethechallengedconditionsthemostrestrictive
availableandimposedondetaineesquadetaineesarenotreasonablyrelatedtoeither
thegoalofprisonsecurity,ornationalsecurity.
31

58

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page59 of 109

Indeed,inWolfish,theSupremeCourtacknowledgedthatloadinga

detaineewithchainsandshacklesandthrowinghiminadungeonmayensure

his[detention]andpreservethesecurityoftheinstitution.Butitwouldbe

difficulttoconceiveofasituationwhereconditionssoharsh,employedto

achieveobjectivesthatcouldbeaccomplishedinsomanyalternativeandless

harshmethods,wouldnotsupportaconclusionthatthepurposeforwhichthey

wereimposedwastopunish.Id.at539n.20.Thatisthesituationbeforeus.

ClearlydetentionconditionslessrestrictivethantheADMAXSHUwerefeasible

fortheMDCPlaintiffs,giventhatthedetaineesheldinthePassaicfacilitywere

10

notheldinisolationorotherwiseplacedinrestrictiveconfinement.Compl.

11

66.PlacingtheMDCPlaintiffsinchainsandshacklesandthrowingthemin

12

theADMAXSHUensuredthattheyposednothreatintheaftermathof9/11;but

13

wecanreachnoconclusionotherthanthattheDOJDefendantsdecisiontodoso

14

wasmadewithpunitiveintent.

15

Inviewoftheforegoing,weholdthattheMDCPlaintiffsfailtoplausibly

16

pleadasubstantivedueprocessclaimagainsttheDOJDefendantscoextensive

17

withtheentirepost9/11investigationandreachingbacktothetimeofPlaintiffs

18

initialdetention.Nonetheless,Plaintiffswellpleadedallegations,inconjunction

59

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page60 of 109

withtheOIGReportsdocumentationofeventssuchastheNewYorkList

controversy,renderplausibletheclaimthatbythebeginningofNovember2001,

Ashcroftknewof,andapproved,theMDCPlaintiffsconfinementundersevere

conditions,andthatMuellerandZiglarcompliedwithAshcroftsorder

notwithstandingtheirknowledgethatthegovernmenthadnoevidencelinking

theMDCPlaintiffstoterroristactivity.Discoverymayultimatelyprove

otherwise,butforpresentpurposes,theMDCPlaintiffssubstantivedueprocess

claimwiththeexceptionofthetemporallimitationnotedabovemayproceed

againsttheDOJDefendants.

10
11

5. QualifiedImmunity
Adefendantisentitledtoqualifiedimmunityifhecanestablish(1)that

12

thecomplaintfailstoplausiblypleadthatthedefendantpersonallyviolatedthe

13

plaintiffsconstitutionalrights,or(2)thattherightwasnotclearlyestablishedat

14

thetimeinquestion.SeePearsonv.Callahan,555U.S.223,232(2009);Varrone,123

15

F.3dat78(notingthatthequalifiedimmunityinquiryturns,generally,onthe

16

objectivelegalreasonablenessofadefendantsactions).

17
18

Forthereasonsstatedabove,theMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatthe
DOJDefendantsviolatedtheirsubstantivedueprocessrights.Withregardtothe

60

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page61 of 109

secondprongofthisinquiry,thelawregardingthepunishmentofpretrial

detaineeswasclearlyestablishedinthefallof2001.Asdiscussed,Wolfishmade

clearthataparticularconditionorrestrictionofpretrialdetentionnotreasonably

relatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjectiveispunishmentinviolationofthe

constitutionalrightsofdetainees.See441U.S.at53539&n.20.AndinHasty,

thisCourtdeniedqualifiedimmunitywithrespecttoamateriallyidentical

conditionsclaimagainstHasty.490F.3dat16869.Weexplainedthat[t]he

rightofpretrialdetaineestobefreefrompunitiverestraintswasclearly

establishedatthetimeoftheeventsinquestion,andnoreasonableofficercould

10

havethoughtthathecouldpunishapretrialdetaineebysubjectinghimtothe

11

practicesandconditionsallegedbythePlaintiff.Id.at169.

12

Hastyfurtherrejectedtheargumentthatthepost9/11contextwarranted

13

qualifiedimmunityevenifitwasotherwiseunavailable.Id.at15960,169.

14

Recognizingthegravityofthesituationthat9/11presented,weexplainedthat

15

qualifiedimmunityremainedinappropriatebecauseapretrialdetaineesrightto

16

befreefrompunishmentdoesnotvarywiththesurroundingcircumstances.Id.

17

at159.Nothinghasunderminedthelogicorprecedentialauthorityofour

18

qualifiedimmunityholdinginHasty.WethereforeconcludethattheDOJ

61

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page62 of 109

DefendantsarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityontheMDCPlaintiffs

conditionsofconfinementclaim.

C. TheMDCDefendants

Inhisopinionbelow,JudgeGleesondividedtheMDCPlaintiffs

conditionsofconfinementclaimagainsttheMDCDefendantsintotwo

categories:officialconditionsallegationsandunofficialabuseallegations.

Theofficialconditionsallegationsconcernexpressconfinementpoliciesthat

theMDCDefendantsapprovedandimplemented;theunofficialabuse

allegationsconcernthephysicalandverbalabusethattheMDCDefendants

10

employedorpermittedtheirsubordinatestoemploy.Wefindthistaxonomy

11

helpfulinanalyzingtheconditionsclaimagainstHasty,Sherman,andZenk.32
1. OfficialConditions

12

TheMDCPlaintiffsgenerallyallegethattheofficialconditionstowhich

13
14

theMDCDefendantssubjectedthemconstitutedpunishment.Wedonot

15

addresswhetherPlaintiffshavesufficientlyallegedanexpressintenttopunish,

16

butratheranalyzewhethertheyhaveplausiblypleadedthat(1)theMDC

PlaintiffsallegationsagainstZenkdonotextendtotheunofficialabusenortoany
harmarisingfromtheofficialconditionsthatoccurredpriortoApril22,2002,the
datehebecameMDCWarden.
32

62

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page63 of 109

Defendantscausedthemtosufferthechallengedconditions,andthat(2)the

challengedconditionswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal,which

allowsustoinferpunitiveintent,Wolfish,441U.S.at539.

TheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatHastyandShermanarepersonally

responsibleforandcausedtheMDCPlaintiffstosufferthechallenged

conditions.TheComplaintcontainsallegationsthatHastyorderedthecreation

oftheADMAXSHUanddirectedtwoofhissubordinatestodesignextremely

restrictiveconditionsofconfinement.Compl.24,75;seealsoid.76

(describingtheextremeconditionsintheADMAXSHU).Accordingtothe

10

Complaint,thoseconditionswerethenapprovedandimplementedbyHastyand

11

Sherman.Id.75.

12

TheOIGreportssupporttheseallegations.Whilethedecisiontoimpose

13

highlyrestrictiveconditionswasmadeatBOPheadquarters,OIGReportat19,

14

MDCofficialscreatedtheparticularconditionsimposed,id.at12425.The

15

reportsspecifythatMDCofficialsmodifiedonewingofthepreexistingSHUto

16

accommodatethedetaineesandthattheADMAXSHUwasdesignedtoconfine

17

thedetaineesinthemostrestrictiveandsecureconditionspermittedbyBOP

18

policy.SupplementalOIGReportat23.AsWardenandAssociateWardenof

63

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page64 of 109

theMDC,HastyandShermanhadtheresponsibilitytocarryoutthesetasks.But

thatalonewouldnotsustainliabilityforeither.

However,theMDCPlaintiffsalsoplausiblypleadthatHastyandSherman

subjectedthemtothechallengedconditionswithpunitiveintentbecausethe

conditionswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal.Wolfish,441U.S.at

539.Specifically,theMDCPlaintiffsallegethatHastyandShermanimposed

theseharshconditionsdespitethefactthattheywereawarethattheFBIhadnot

developedanyinformationtotietheMDCPlaintiffs[andotherdetainees]they

placedintheADMAXSHUtoterrorism.Compl.69.Asdiscussedabove

10

withrespecttotheDOJDefendants,individualizedsuspicionwasnotrequired

11

tosubjectdetaineestotherestrictiveconditionsofconfinementinherentinany

12

detention.Butthechallengedconditionswerenotsimplyrestrictive;theywere

13

punitive:thereisnolegitimategovernmentalpurposeinholdingsomeoneasif

14

hewereaterroristsimplybecausehehappenstobe,orappearstobe,Arabor

15

Muslim.

16

TheMDCDefendants,andourdissentingcolleague,notethatBOP

17

Headquartersorderedthatthedetaineesbeplacedinthehighestlevelof

18

restrictivedetentionand,thus,arguethatwecannotinferpunitiveintentfrom

64

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page65 of 109

theMDCDefendantscompliancewiththatorder.SeeDissentingOp.,postat70

n.40,71(quotingOIGReportat112).TheyfurtherclaimthatbecausetheFBIhad

designatedtheindividualsheldintheADMAXSHUasofinterest,theMDC

Defendantsareabsolvedfromliability.See,e.g.,HastyBr.17,2526.

ButevenifHastyandShermaninitiallybelievedthattheywouldbe

housingonlythosedetaineeswhoweresuspectedoftiestoterrorism,the

ComplaintcontainssufficientfactualallegationsthattheMDCDefendants

eventuallyknewthattheFBIlackedanyindividualizedsuspicionformanyof

thedetaineesthatweresenttotheADMAXSHU.PlaintiffsallegethatHasty

10

andShermanreceivedregularwrittenupdatesexplainingwhyeachdetaineehad

11

beenarrestedandincludingallevidencerelevanttothedangerhemightpose

12

totheMDC,andthattheseupdatesoftenlackedanyindicationofasuspicionof

13

atietoterrorism.Compl.69.33Theyfurtherexplainthat[t]heexactlanguage

14

oftheseupdateswasrepeatedweekly,indicatingthecontinuedlackofany

Forexample,theMDCDefendantswereinformedthatPlaintiffAbbasiwas
encounteredbyINSpursuanttoanFBIlead;thatheusedafraudulentpassportto
entertheU.S.toseekasylum,andlaterdestroyedthatpassport;thatherequestedand
wasdeniedvariousformsofimmigrationrelief;thatheobtainedandusedafraudulent
advanceparolelettertoenterthecountry,andthathewasthusinadmissible.The
updateincludednostatementofFBIinterestinAbbasi.Compl.72.
33

65

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page66 of 109

informationtying[Plaintiffs]toterrorism,ortendingtoshowthatanyofthem

mightposeadanger.Id.73.

TheMDCPlaintiffsrelatedlyallegethatHastyandShermanknewthat

BOPregulationsrequireindividualizedassessmentsfordetaineesplacedinthe

SHUformorethansevendays,yetorderedtheMDCPlaintiffscontinued

detentionintheADMAXSHUwithoutperformingtheseassessments,andHasty

ordered[his]subordinatestoignoreBOPregulationsregardingdetention

conditions.Id.68;seealsoid.7374.

TheMDCPlaintiffsfurtherallegethatHastyandShermanapproveda

10

documentthatfalselystatedthatexecutivestaffatMDChadclassifiedthe

11

suspectedterroristsasHighSecuritybasedonanindividualizedassessmentof

12

theirprecipitatingoffense,pastterroristbehavior,andinabilitytoadaptto

13

incarceration.Id.74.Inaddition,theMDCPlaintiffsallegethatHastyand

14

ShermancontinuedtodetainthemintheADMAXSHUevenafteraffirmatively

15

learningthattheFBIlackedindividualizedevidencelinkingPlaintiffsto

16

terrorism.Seeid.6971,74.TheseallegationsarebuttressedbyPlaintiffs

17

assertionsthattheyremainedconfinedintheADMAXSHUevenafterreceiving

18

finalclearancefromtheNewYorkFBIfieldofficeandFBIHeadquarters.For

66

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page67 of 109

instance,theComplaintallegesthatBenamarBenattawasclearedonNovember

14,2001,thatthisinformationwasavailabletotheMDC,andthatBenatta

nonethelessremainedintheADMAXSHUuntilApril30,2002.Seeid.188.

TheOIGReportdirectlysupportstheseallegations;asstatedbyoneBOP

official,all9/11detaineesattheMDCwereplacedintheADMAXSHUand

subjectedtotheofficialconditionsbecause,atleastinitially,theBOPdidnot

reallyknowwhomthedetaineeswere.OIGReportat19;seealsoCompl.4;

OIGReportat112,126.SpecificfactualallegationsthatHastyandSherman

failedtoassesswhethertherestrictiveconditionswereappropriatefor

10

individual9/11detaineesbuttresstheMDCPlaintiffsclaimthatthechallenged

11

conditionswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal,andthatHastyand

12

Shermanwerepersonallyresponsibleforthetreatment.

13

WerecognizethattheMDCDefendantsmayhavebeeninadifficult

14

positionwhentheyreceiveddetaineeswithoutaccompanyinginformation

15

regardingthoseindividuals.Recordproofmayeventuallyestablishthatthe

16

MDCPlaintiffsclaimislimitedtotheperiodoftimethatHastyandSherman

17

knewthattheMDCPlaintiffswerebeingheldwithoutsuspicionoftiesto

18

terrorism.Butwecannotconclude,atleastatthemotiontodismissstage,thatit

67

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page68 of 109

wasreasonabletotakeadefaultpositionofimposingthemostrestrictiveformof

detentionavailablewhenonelacksindividualizedevidencethatthedetainee

posesadangertotheinstitutionorthenation.Accordingly,weconcludethat

theMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadasubstantivedueprocessclaimagainstHasty

andShermanastotheofficialconditions.
TheComplaintdoesnot,however,permitaninferenceofpersonalliability

6
7

astoZenk,whodidnotbecomeMDCWardenuntilApril22,2002,whenonly

twoPlaintiffsremainedintheADMAXSHU.Fundamentally,theallegations

thatpersonallyidentifyZenkaretoogeneralandconclusorytosupport

10

Plaintiffsclaim.WethereforedismisstheMDCPlaintiffssubstantivedue

11

processclaimagainstZenk.
2. UnofficialAbuse

12
13

ThedistrictcourtproperlyviewedtheMDCPlaintiffsunofficialabuse

14

allegationsunderthedeliberateindifferencestandardcommonlyappliedinthe

15

EighthAmendmentprisonermistreatmentcontext.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.

16

2dat341&n.13.34GiventhenatureoftheMDCPlaintiffsunofficialabuse

ThedeliberateindifferencestandardwouldclearlyapplyiftheMDCPlaintiffshad
beenprisonersentitledtotheEighthAmendmentsprotectionagainstcrueland
unusualpunishment.SeeWalkerv.Schult,717F.3d119,125(2dCir.2013).Becausea
34

68

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page69 of 109

allegations,premisingliabilityonHastyandShermansdeliberateindifferenceis

consistentwithIqbalsholdingthatBivensdefendantsareliableonlyif,through

theirownactions,theysatisfyeachelementoftheunderlyingconstitutionaltort.

See556U.S.at676.

PriortoIqbal,thisCourtrecognizedclaimsagainstasupervisorydefendant

solongasthedefendantwaspersonallyinvolvedwiththeallegedconstitutional

violation.InColonv.Coughlin,58F.3d865,873(2dCir.1995),thisCourt

identifiedfivewaysinwhichaplaintiffmayestablishadefendantspersonal

involvement.Oneisthroughadefendantsdeliberateindifference.Id.Asthe

10

districtcourtexplained,thefactthataparticulartypeofconductconstitutes

11

personalinvolvementunderColondoesnotinherentlyprecludetheconduct

12

fromalsosupportingatheoryofdirectliability.TurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat

13

33536.Forinstance,plausiblypleadingthatadefendantparticipateddirectly

14

intheallegedconstitutionalviolationoneformofpersonalinvolvement

pretrialdetaineesrightsareatleastasrobustasthoseofasentencedprisoner,wehave
appliedtheEighthAmendmentdeliberateindifferencetesttopretrialdetainees
bringingclaimsundertheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendment.See,e.g.,Cuoco
v.Moritsugu,222F.3d99,106(2dCir.2000).Wedonotaddresswhethercivil
immigrationdetaineesshouldbegovernedbyanevenmoreprotectivestandardthan
pretrialcriminaldetainees.

69

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page70 of 109

enumeratedinColon,58F.3dat873couldestablishdirect,asopposedto

vicarious,liability.Theproperinquiryisnotthenamewebestowonaparticular

theoryorstandard,butratherwhetherthatstandardbeitdeliberate

indifference,punitiveintent,ordiscriminatoryintentreflectstheelementsof

theunderlyingconstitutionaltort.SeeIqbal,556U.S.at676(Thefactors

necessarytoestablishaBivensviolationwillvarywiththeconstitutional

provisionatissue.).

OurconclusionisconsistentwithIqbal,thisCourtspriorrulings,see

Walker,717F.3dat125,andtheweightofCircuitprecedent.Forinstance,inStarr

10

v.Baca,652F.3d1202,120607(9thCir.2011),theNinthCircuitdeterminedthat

11

IqbaldoesnotprecludeBivensclaimspremisedondeliberateindifferencewhen

12

theunderlyingconstitutionalviolationrequiresnomorethandeliberate

13

indifference.SeealsoDoddsv.Richardson,614F.3d1185,120405(10thCir.2010);

14

SandraT.E.v.Grindle,599F.3d583,59091(7thCir.2010);Sanchezv.Pereira

15

Castillo,590F.3d31,49(1stCir.2009).

16

TheMDCPlaintiffsunofficialabuseclaimthereforesurvivessolongas

17

Plaintiffsplausiblypleadthattheconditionsweresufficientlyserious,andHasty

18

andShermankn[e]wof,anddisregard[ed],anexcessiverisktoinmatehealthor

70

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page71 of 109

safety.Walker,717F.3dat125(internalquotationmarksomitted);accordCuoco,

222F.3dat107.TheMDCPlaintiffsclearlymeetthisstandardwithrespectto

Hasty.Simplystated,theirfactualallegationspermittheinferencethatheknew

thatMDCstaffsubjectedtheMDCPlaintiffstotheunofficialabusesand

permittedifnotfacilitatedthecontinuationoftheseabuses.SeeCompl.

24,7778,107,10910.

Forexample,theComplaintcontainsallegationsthatHastyavoided

evidenceofdetaineeabusebyneglectingtomakeroundsontheADMAX

[SHU]unit,aswasrequiredofhimbyBOPpolicy.Id.24.TheMDCPlaintiffs

10

alsoallegethatHastywasnonethelessmadeawareoftheabusethroughinmate

11

complaints,staffcomplaints,hungerstrikes,andsuicideattempts.Id.;seealso

12

id.7778(detailinghowHastymadeitdifficultfordetaineestofile

13

complaintsandignoredtheevidencewhentheydid,andhowstaffofficialswho

14

complainedwerecalledsnitchesandwerethreatened).Indeed,complaints

15

aboutabuseof9/11detaineeswerepervasiveenoughtocausetheBOPto

16

videotapealldetaineemovementsandresultedintheinvestigationslater

17

detailedintheOIGreports.Id.107.TheMDCPlaintiffsalsocomplainthat

71

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page72 of 109

Hastyencouragedhissubordinatesharshtreatmentofthedetaineesbyhimself

referringtothedetaineesasterrorists.Id.77,109.

TheallegationsagainstSherman,becausetheyaremoregeneraland

conclusoryinnature,aremoretenuous.Forinstance,Plaintiffsallegeprincipally

thatShermanallowedhissubordinatestoabuseMDCPlaintiffsandclass

memberswithimpunity.ShermanmaderoundsontheADMAXSHUandwas

awareofconditionsthere.Id.26.Theseallegationslackaspecificfactual

basistosupportaclaimthatShermanwasawareoftheparticularabusesat

issue.Therefore,weholdthattheMDCPlaintiffsfailtoplausiblypleadan

10

unofficialconditionsclaimastoSherman.35
3. QualifiedImmunity

11

TheMDCDefendantsclaimthatqualifiedimmunityisappropriate

12
13

becausetheyweremerelyfollowingtheordersofBOPsuperiors,withtheinput

14

andguidanceoftheFBIandINS.See,e.g.,HastyBr.33.Specifically,Hasty

15

claimsthattheBOP,INS,andFBIofficialsordered[him]toplacehighinterest

16

9/11detaineesintheADMAXSHU,anddirectedthattheybesubjecttothe

17

tightestsecuritypossible.Id.Hefurtherarguesthat[t]hesolebasisforthe

TheMDCPlaintiffsnonethelessmaintainasubstantivedueprocessclaimagainst
Shermanastotheofficialconditions,asdiscussedsupra.
35

72

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page73 of 109

detaineesconfinementintheADMAXSHUtheFBIsinvestigativeinterest

wasoutsidethescopeofMDCofficialsdiscretion.Id.at35.Byextension,he

claimsthatitwasreasonabletodetaintheMDCPlaintiffsandotherhigh

interest9/11detaineesintheADMAXSHU.

Theseargumentsfail.First,aswiththeDOJDefendants,ourqualified

immunityanalysisinHastyapplieswithequalforcetotheMDCPlaintiffs

conditionsclaimagainstHastyandShermaninthiscase.SeeHasty,490F.3dat

16869.In2001,itwasclearlyestablishedthatpunitiveconditionsof

confinement,likethoseinvolvedhere,couldnotbeimposedonpretrial

10

detaineessuchastheMDCPlaintiffs.Asdiscussedabovewithrespecttothe

11

DOJDefendants,Wolfishmadeclearthataconditionofpretrialdetentionnot

12

reasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjectiveispunishmentin

13

violationoftheconstitutionalrightsofdetainees.See441U.S.at53539&n.20;

14

Hasty,490F.3dat169.Furthermore,giventhenearlyidenticalclaimsand

15

circumstancesinHastyandthiscase,weseenoreasontodepartfromourprior

16

determinationthatHastywasnotentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.

17

NorisHastyentitledtoqualifiedimmunitywithregardtotheunofficial

18

conditionsclaim.Asdiscussed,theMDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedthat

73

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page74 of 109

Hastypersonallyviolatedtheirconstitutionalrightsbyknowingof,and

disregarding,anexcessiverisktotheirhealthorsafety.TherightoftheMDC

Plaintiffstobefreefromsuchunofficialabusewasclearlyestablishedatthetime

oftheeventsinquestion.See,e.g.,DeShaneyv.WinnebagoCnty.DeptofSoc.

Servs.,489U.S.189,200(1989)([W]hentheStatebytheaffirmativeexerciseofits

powersorestrainsanindividualslibertythatitrendershimunabletocarefor

himself,andatthesametimefailstoprovideforhisbasichumanneedse.g.,

food,clothing,shelter,medicalcare,andreasonablesafetyittransgressesthe

substantivelimitsonstateactionsetby...theDueProcessClause.);seealso

10
11

Walker,717F.3dat125,130;Cuoco,222F.3dat106.
Plaintiffsallegations,theOIGReport,andtheMDCDefendants

12

argumentsconfirmthatHastyandShermanhoused9/11detaineesforextended

13

periodsoftimeinhighlyrestrictiveconditionswithouteverobtaining

14

individualizedinformationthatwouldwarrantthistreatment.Because

15

Plaintiffsallegationssupportaninferenceofpunitiveintent,anditwouldbe

16

inappropriatetowrestlewithcompetingfactualaccountsatthisstageofthe

17

litigation,weholdthatareasonableofficerintheMDCDefendantsposition

74

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page75 of 109

wouldhaveconcludedthatthistreatmentwasnotreasonablyrelatedtoa

legitimategoal.

IV.

Claim2:

EqualProtectionConditionsofConfinement

PlaintiffsnextassertaclaimthatDefendantssubjectedthemtotheharsh

4
5

conditionsofconfinementdetailedabovebasedontheirrace,ethnicity,religion,

and/ornationalorigin,inviolationoftheequalprotectionguaranteeoftheFifth

Amendment.36

A. ApplicableLegalStandard

TostateanequalprotectionviolationundertheFifthAmendment,the

10

plaintiffmustpleadandprovethatthedefendantactedwithdiscriminatory

11

purpose.Iqbal,556U.S.at676.[P]urposefuldiscriminationrequiresmorethan

12

intentasvolitionorintentasawarenessofconsequences.Id.(internalquotation

13

marksomitted).Itinsteadinvolvesadecisionmakersundertakingacourseof

14

actionbecauseof,notmerelyinspiteof,[theactions]adverseeffectsuponan

15

identifiablegroup.Id.at67677(alterationinoriginal)(internalquotation

16

marksomitted).

AllPlaintiffsassertanequalprotectionclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants.Abbasi,
Khalifa,Mehmood,andBajracharyadonotassertthisclaimagainstZenk,and
SachdevaandTurkmendonotmakethisclaimagainstanyoftheMDCDefendants.
36

75

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page76 of 109

Aplaintiffcanshowintentionaldiscriminationby:(1)point[ing]toalaw

orpolicythatexpresslyclassifiespersonsonthebasisofasuspectclassification;

(2)identify[ing]afaciallyneutrallaworpolicythathasbeenappliedinan

intentionallydiscriminatorymanner[;]or(3)alleg[ing]thatafaciallyneutral

statuteorpolicyhasanadverseeffectandthatitwasmotivatedby

discriminatoryanimus.Brownv.CityofOneonta,N.Y.,221F.3d329,337(2dCir.

2000)(internalquotationmarksomitted).

8
9

ThedistrictcourtcharacterizedPlaintiffsequalprotectionclaimasfalling
withinthefirstcategorythatis,aclaimthatDefendantssubjectedPlaintiffsto

10

thechallengedconditionsofconfinementpursuanttoapolicythatexpressly

11

classifiedPlaintiffsonthebasisoftheirrace,ethnicity,religion,and/ornational

12

origin.GivenourreadingofPlaintiffsallegationsandargumentsonappeal,we

13

willnotanalyzethisclaim,particularlyasitrelatestotheMDCDefendants,

14

underthefirstequalprotectiontheoryalone.

15

B. TheDOJDefendants

16

ThedistrictcourtconcludedthatPlaintiffsfailedtostateanequal

17

protectionclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants,butf[ou]ndtheissuetobeaclose

18

one.TurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat345.InviewofouranalysisofPlaintiffs

76

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page77 of 109

substantivedueprocessclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants,andparticularlythese

DefendantsroleswithrespecttothemergeroftheNewYorkList,weholdthat

theMDCPlaintiffshaveadequatelyallegedanequalprotectionclaimagainst

Ashcroft,Mueller,andZiglar.

PlaintiffswellpleadedallegationsandtheOIGReportgiverisetothe

followingreasonableinferences,whichrenderplausibletheMDCPlaintiffs

equalprotectionclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants:(1)theNewYorkFBIfield

officediscriminatorilytargetedindividualsinthe9/11investigationnotbasedon

individualizedsuspicion,butratherbasedonrace,ethnicity,religion,and/or

10

nationalorigin,andthoseindividualswerethenplacedontheNewYorkList;

11

(2)theDOJDefendantsknewaboutthediscriminatorymannerinwhichtheNew

12

YorkFBIfieldofficeplacedindividualsontheNewYorkList;and(3)theDOJ

13

DefendantscondonedtheNewYorkFBIsdiscriminationbymergingtheNew

14

YorkListwiththeINSList,therebyensuringthatsomeoftheindividualsonthe

15

NewYorkListwouldbesubjectedtothechallengedconditionsofconfinement.

16

PlaintiffsallegethattheNewYorkFBIfieldofficetargetedindividualsin

17

thePENTTBOMinvestigationandplacedthemontheNewYorkListbasedon

18

race,ethnicity,religion,and/ornationalorigin.[T]heheadoftheNewYorkFBI

77

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page78 of 109

fieldofficestatedthatanindividualsArabappearanceandstatusasaMuslim

werefactorstoconsiderintheinvestigation.Compl.42.Evenmoretelling,a

supervisorinthesamelocalFBIoffice,whooversawtheclearanceprocess[,]

statedthatatipaboutRussiantouristsfilmingtheMidtowntunnelwas

obviouslyofnointerest,butthatthesametipaboutEgyptianswasofinterest.

Id.IndividualswhowerearrestedbytheNewYorkFBIandINSinconnection

withaPENTTBOMleadwereautomaticallytreatedasofinterest,OIGReport

at4041,andwereplacedontheNewYorkList,seeid.at53.

Thisdiscriminatoryapproach,focusingonanindividualsArab

10

appearance,Compl.42,isconsistentwithwhatisallegedtohaveoccurredin

11

Bajracharyascase.Bajracharya,whoasnoted,isaBuddhistandnativeofNepal,

12

cametotheFBIsattentionwhenanemployeefromtheQueensCountyDistrict

13

AttorneysOfficeobservedan[A]rabmalevideotapingoutsideaQueens[]

14

officebuildingthatcontainedtheQueensCountyDistrictAttorney[s]Officeand

15

aNewYorkFBIoffice.Id.230.InvestigatorsfromtheDistrictAttorneys

16

OfficequestionedBajracharyaaboutwhyhewastakingpictures,and

17

Bajracharyatriedtoexplainthathewasatourist.Id.Hewasarrestedafter

18

acknowledgingheoverstayedhisvisaandwasdetainedintheADMAXSHU.

78

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page79 of 109

GiventheComplaintsallegationsregardingtheNewYorkFBIstactics,itis

reasonabletoinferthatofficialsintheNewYorkFBItargetedcertainindividuals,

includingPlaintiffs,forinvestigation,arrest,andplacementontheNewYork

Listsimplybecausetheywere,orappearedtobe,AraborMuslim,andnot

becauseofanysuspicionregardingalinktoterrorism.

Asweconcludeabovewithrespecttothesubstantivedueprocessclaim,

theDOJDefendantswereinformedoftheproblemspresentedbytheNewYork

List.Asnoted,theOIGReportrevealsthatbyOctober2001theSIOCWorking

GrouplearnedabouttheNewYorkListandthatofficialsattheINS,FBI,and

10

[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,amongotherthings,whetherthealienshadany

11

nexustoterrorism.OIGReportat53.PlaintiffsallegethatahighrankingDOJ

12

officialnotedthatindividualsweredetainedwithoutanyattempttodetermine

13

iftheywereofactualinterest,andthattheofficialwasconcernedearlyinthe

14

investigationthatdetaineeswerebeingheldsimplyonthebasisoftheir

15

ethnicity.Compl.45.TheDOJDefendantswereunlikelytohaveremained

16

unawareoftheseconcerns,astheyreceiveddetaileddailyreportsofthearrests

17

anddetentions,id.47,seealsoid.6364,andMuellerwasindailycontact

18

withtheFBIfieldofficesregardingthestatusofindividualclearances,id.57.

79

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page80 of 109

Inlightoftheseallegations,wecanreasonablyinferthattheseDefendantswere

awarethattheNewYorkFBIfieldofficewasplacingindividualsontheNew

YorkListnotbecauseofanysuspectedtiestoterrorismbutratherbecausethey

were,orwereperceivedtobe,AraborMuslim.

WhiletheDOJDefendantsmereknowledgeofthisdiscriminatoryaction

bytheNewYorkFBIfieldofficewouldbeinsufficienttoallowforthereasonable

inferencethattheseDefendantspossessedthediscriminatorypurposerequired

tostateanequalprotectionclaim,Plaintiffsallegationsarenotlimitedtothe

DOJDefendantsknowledgealone.Rather,aswediscussindetailinthe

10

substantivedueprocessanalysisabove,PlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatAshcroft

11

madethedecisiontomergetheNewYorkListwiththenationalINSList,

12

ensuringthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNewYorkListwouldbeplacedin,

13

orremaindetainedin,thechallengedconditionsofconfinement.Plaintiffs

14

furtherallegethatMuellerandZiglarwereawarethattheNewYorkList

15

containeddetaineesagainstwhomtheFBIhadassertednointerestandthat

16

subjectingthemtothechallengedconditionswouldbefaciallyunreasonable.In

17

orderingandcomplyingwiththemergeroftheNewYorkList,theDOJ

80

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page81 of 109

DefendantsactivelycondonedtheNewYorkFBIfieldofficesdiscriminatory

formulationofthatlist.

TheDOJDefendantscondonationoftheNewYorkFBIfieldoffices

purposefuldiscriminationallowsustoreasonablyinferatthemotiontodismiss

stagethattheDOJDefendantsthemselvesactedwithdiscriminatorypurpose.

TheSupremeCourtinIqbalstatedthatdiscretewrongsforinstance,

beatingsbylowerlevelGovernmentactors[]...iftrue,andifcondonedby

[AshcroftandMueller],couldbethebasisforsomeinferenceofwrongfulintent

on[AshcroftandMuellers]part.556U.S.at683.Inasimilarvein,wehave

10

held,inacaseinvolvinganequalprotectionclaimunder42U.S.C.1983,thata

11

reasonablefactfindercouldconcludethattheCommissioneroftheFire

12

DepartmentoftheCityofNewYorkintendedtodiscriminatewhenhedecided

13

tocontinuetousetheresultsofemploymentexaminationsthatheknewhada

14

disparateimpactbasedonrace.SeeUnitedStatesv.CityofNewYork,717F.3d72,

15

94(2dCir.2013).Here,itisreasonabletoinferthatAshcroft,Mueller,andZiglar

16

possessedtherequisitediscriminatoryintentbecausetheyknewthattheNew

17

YorkListwasformedinadiscriminatorymanner,andneverthelesscondoned

18

thatdiscriminationbyorderingandcomplyingwiththemergerofthelists,

81

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page82 of 109

whichensuredthattheMDCPlaintiffsandother9/11detaineeswouldbeheldin

thechallengedconditionsofconfinement.

Contrarytothedissentscontentions,seeDissentingOp.,postat7678,this

caseisdistinguishablefromIqbal,wheretheSupremeCourtconcludedthatthe

plaintifffailedtostateanequalprotectionclaim.InIqbal,thereweremore

likelyexplanationsforwhytheplaintiffwasdetainedinharshconditionsother

thanhisrace,religion,ornationalorigin.556U.S.at681.Thosemorelikely

explanationsfortheplaintiffstreatment,accordingtotheSupremeCourt,were

thatAshcroftandMuellersupportedalegitimatepolicy...toarrestanddetain

10

individualsbecauseoftheirsuspectedlinktotheattacks,whichproduce[d]a

11

disparate,incidentalimpactonArabMuslims,eventhoughthepurposeofthe

12

policywastotargetneitherArabsnorMuslims.Id.at682(emphasisadded).

13

TheSupremeCourtnotedthat[o]nthefactsrespondentallegesthearrestsMueller

14

oversawwerelikelylawfulandjustifiedbyhisnondiscriminatoryintentto

15

detainalienswhowereillegallypresentintheUnitedStatesandwhohadpotential

16

connectionstothosewhocommittedterroristacts.Id.(emphasisadded);seealsoid.

17

at683(notingthatalltheallegationsinIqbalsuggest[ed]isthattheNationstop

18

lawenforcementofficers...soughttokeepsuspectedterroristsinthemostsecure

82

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page83 of 109

conditionsavailableuntilthesuspectscouldbeclearedofterroristactivity

(emphasisadded)).

Inthiscase,unlikeinIqbal,itisnotmorelikelythattheMDCPlaintiffs

weredetainedinthechallengedconditionsbecauseoftheirsuspectedtiestothe

9/11attacks.Indeed,asdiscussedatlengthearlier,Plaintiffshaveplausibly

allegedthattheyweredetainedwithoutanysuspicionofalinktoterrorist

activityandthattheDOJDefendantsknewthatthegovernmentlacked

informationtyingPlaintiffstoterroristactivity,butdecidedtomergethelists

anyway.37Thus,unlikeinIqbal,therewasnolegitimatereasontodetainthe

10

MDCPlaintiffsinthechallengedconditionsand,thus,noobvious,morelikely

GiventheclearlanguageusedbytheSupremeCourtinIqbalregardingthedetainees
connectionstoterrorism,556U.S.at68283,weunderstandtheIqbalCourttohave
rejectedasconclusorytheallegationintheIqbalcomplaintidentifiedbythedissent,
whichonlypleadsinthebroadesttermsthattheIqbalplaintiffswereconfinedwithout
anyindividualdeterminationthatsuchrestrictionswereappropriateorshould
continue.SeeDissentingOp.,postat8182(quotingFirstAm.Compl.97,App.to
Pet.forCert.173a,Ashcroftv.Iqbal,No.071015(U.S.Feb.6,2008),availableat
http://1.usa.gov/1CfHJQF).Here,incontrast,thewellpleadedallegations,assupported
bytheOIGreports,allegethattheDOJDefendantsmade,andcompliedwith,the
decisiontomergetheNewYorkListwiththenationalINSList,therebyensuringthat
theMDCPlaintiffs,andothers,remainedinthechallengedconditionsofconfinement
despitetheabsenceofanysuspicionthattheyweretiedtoterrorism.
37

83

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page84 of 109

explanationfortheDOJDefendantsactionswithrespecttotheNewYorkList

merger.38
ThedissentalsoarguesthatwecannotplausiblyinfertheDOJDefendants

3
4

discriminatoryintentfromthemergerdecisionbecausenotalloftheindividuals

ontheNewYorkListweresubjectedtothesamelevelofrestrictiveconfinement.

SeeDissentingOp.,postat7980.Butthefactthatsomeindividualsofthesame

race,ethnicity,religion,and/ornationaloriginastheMDCPlaintiffswere

restrainedinthePassaicCountyJail,asopposedtotheADMAXSHU,hardly

doomstheMDCPlaintiffsclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants.Thereisno

10

allegationthattheDOJDefendantswereresponsiblefortheassignmentof

11

certainactualorperceivedArabandMuslimmalestoPassaicasopposedtothe

12

morerestrictiveADMAXSHU.SeeOIGReportat1718,12627,158(notingthat

13

assignmentresponsibilityfelllargelytothearrestingFBIagent).Rather,

14

PlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedthattheDOJDefendantscondonedandratified

15

theNewYorkFBIsdiscriminationinidentifyingdetaineesbymergingtheNew

Furthermore,thefactthatPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantsmerged
theNewYorkList,andcompliedwiththelistmerger,basedonpunitiveintent(the
substantivedueprocessclaim)arguablysuggeststheplausibilityoftheMDCPlaintiffs
allegationsthattheDOJDefendantsalsopossessedthediscriminatoryintentrequired
foranequalprotectionclaim.SeesupraSectionIII.B.
38

84

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page85 of 109

YorkListwiththeINSList.TheDOJDefendants,apparentlydeferringtoothers

designationofdetaineesforparticularfacilities,thusensuredthatsome(andfor

alltheyknew,all)oftheindividualsontheNewYorkListwouldbesubjectedto

thechallengedconditionsofconfinementsolelyonthebasisofdiscriminatory

criteria.Thefactthatsomeoftheseindividualswereactuallyassignedtotheless

restrictivePassaicfacilityisthusaredherring.39
Basedontheforegoing,weconcludethattheMDCPlaintiffsallegations

7
8

aresufficienttostateanequalprotectionclaimagainstAshcroft,Mueller,and

ZiglarfortheircondonationoftheNewYorkFBIsdiscriminatoryformulationof

10

theNewYorkList,whichresultedintheMDCPlaintiffsbeingsubjectedtothe

11

conditionsofconfinementchallengedhere.

Moreover,totheextentthisdifferentialassignmentofclassmembers,again
apparentlybyagentsoftheNewYorkFBIandnottheDOJDefendants,mightbe
relevanttoPlaintiffsequalprotectionclaim,becauseitcouldsuggestthattheNew
YorkFBIwasnotactuallydiscriminating,itismoreappropriatelyconsideredat
summaryjudgment.Indeed,thecasesembracedbythedissentconcludethatevidence
ofdifferentialtreatmentofmembersofthesameclassmayweakenaninferenceof
discriminationatthesummaryjudgmentstage.SeeOConnorv.Consol.CoinCaterersCorp.,
517U.S.308,309(1996)(summaryjudgment);Flemingv.MaxMaraUSA,Inc.,371F.
Appx115,116(2dCir.2010)(summaryorder)(summaryjudgment);Jamesv.N.Y.
RacingAssn,233F.3d149,151(2dCir.2000)(summaryjudgment).Inlightofthewell
pleadedallegationsregardingdiscriminationbytheNewYorkFBI,Plaintiffshave
hardlypleadedthemselvesoutofcourtonthispoint.
39

85

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page86 of 109

1
2

C. TheMDCDefendants
WeagreewiththedistrictcourtthattheMDCPlaintiffshavestateda

plausibleequalprotectionclaimagainstHastyandSherman,althoughwebase

ourdecisiononsomewhatdifferentreasoningthanthatemployedbythecourt

below.However,wedonotagreewiththedistrictcourtthattheMDCPlaintiffs

haveadequatelyallegedthisclaimagainstZenk.

OurconclusionfocusesonallegationsofmendacitybyHastyandSherman

regardingthebasisfordetainingtheMDCPlaintiffsintheADMAXSHU.The

ComplaintassertsthatHastyandShermanwereawarethatplacingthe9/11

10

detaineesintheADMAXSHUunitwithoutanindividualizeddeterminationof

11

dangerousnessorriskwasunlawful.Compl.74.However,theseDefendants

12

neveractuallyundertookthatrequiredindividualizedassessment.Id.73.

13

Nevertheless,HastyandShermanapprovedadocumentthatuntruthfully

14

statedthattheexecutivestaffat[the]MDChadclassifiedthesuspected

15

terroristsasHighSecuritybasedonanindividualizedassessmentoftheir

16

precipitatingoffense,pastterroristbehavior,andinabilitytoadaptto

17

incarceration.Id.74.Infact,neitherHastynorShermansaworconsidered

18

informationinanyofthesecategoriesindecidingtoplacethe9/11detaineesin

86

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page87 of 109

theADMAXSHU.Id.;40seealsoid.6872(HastyandShermanheldtheMDC

PlaintiffsintheADMAXSHUknowingthattheywerenottiedtoterrorismand

withoutperformingtherequiredindividualizedassessmentofwhetherPlaintiffs

posedadangertothefacility).
Basedontheforegoingallegationsofduplicityregardingthebasisfor

5
6

confiningthe9/11detainees,itisreasonabletoinferthatHastyandSherman

approvedthisfalsedocumenttojustifydetainingactualorperceivedArabsand

MuslimsintheharshconditionsoftheADMAXSHUbasedondiscriminatory

intent.Cf.Reevesv.SandersonPlumbingProds.,Inc.,530U.S.133,147(2000)(inthe

10

employmentdiscriminationcontext,thetrieroffactcanreasonablyinferfrom

11

thefalsityoftheexplanationthattheemployerisdissemblingtocoverupa

12

discriminatorypurpose);id.(aninferenceofdiscriminatorypurposebasedon

13

anemployersfalseexplanationisconsistentwiththegeneralprincipleof

14

evidencelawthatthefactfinderisentitledtoconsiderapartysdishonestyabout

15

amaterialfactasaffirmativeevidenceofguilt(internalquotationmarks

Aspreviouslynoted,theterm9/11detaineesisdefinedintheComplaintasnon
citizensfromtheMiddleEast,SouthAsia,andelsewherewhoareAraborMuslim,or
wereperceivedtobeAraborMuslim.Individualswithcertainofthesecharacteristics
whowerearrestedanddetainedinresponsetothe9/11attacksconstitutetheputative
classinthiscase.
40

87

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page88 of 109

omitted));St.MarysHonorCtr.v.Hicks,509U.S.502,511(1993)(disbeliefofthe

reasonsputforwardbythedefendant(particularlyifdisbeliefisaccompaniedby

asuspicionofmendacity)may...showintentionaldiscriminationinthe

employmentdiscriminationcontext).

Thedissentarguesthatwecannotinferdiscriminatoryintentfromthe

MDCDefendantsapprovalofthisfalsedocument,concludingthatthemore

likelyreasonforthismendacityistheseDefendantsconcernfornational

security.SeeDissentingOp.,postat8384.AlthoughrecognizingthattheMDC

Defendantsmightbefaultedforapprovingafalsedocumentstatingthateach

10

detaineehadbeenassessedasaHighSecuritysuspectedterrorist[],our

11

dissentingcolleaguebelievesHastyandShermansactionsaremorelikely

12

explainedbyrelianceontheFBIsdesignationofeachMDCPlaintiffasaperson

13

ofinterestorofhighinteresttotheongoingterrorisminvestigation.Yet,the

14

allegationsintheComplaintbeliethisalternativeexplanationforHastyand

15

Shermansdishonesty.PlaintiffsallegethattheMDCDefendantswereaware

16

thattheFBIhadnotdevelopedanyinformationtotiethe9/11detaineesto

17

terrorism.Compl.69(emphasisadded).Indeed,theMDCDefendants

18

receivedregularupdatesontheFBIsinvestigation,includingthedearthof

88

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page89 of 109

evidenceconnectingthe9/11detaineestoterrorism.Suchbriefingplacing

HastyandShermanonrepeatednoticeofthelackofanyspecificinformation

justifyingrestrictiveconfinementintheADMAXSHUrendersimplausiblethe

innocentexplanationfortheirmendacity.

Asanadditionalmatter,thefactthatthefalsedocumentthatHastyand

Shermanapproved,onitsface,appliedtosuspectedterroristsandnotjustactual

orperceivedArabsandMuslimsdoesnotunderminethereasonablenessofthe

inferencethattheseDefendantsactedbasedondiscriminatoryintent.Plaintiffs

allegethatHastyandShermanapprovedthedocumenteventhoughtheyhad

10

notperformedtherequiredindividualizedassessmentsandknewthatkeeping

11

the9/11detaineesintheADMAXSHUwithoutthoseassessmentswas

12

unlawful.Id.7374.Theyfurtherallegethat,inapprovingthedocument,

13

HastyandShermanfailedtoconsiderthepastoffenses,pastterroristactivity,

14

andinabilitytoadapttoincarcerationwithrespecttothe9/11detainees.Id.

15

74.BasedonPlaintiffsallegationsabouthowthefalsedocumentrelatedin

16

particulartothe9/11detainees,agrouptheComplaintspecificallydefineson

17

racial,ethnic,andreligiousgrounds,seeid.1,itisreasonabletoinfer,atleastat

89

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page90 of 109

themotiontodismissstage,thatHastyandShermanliedinordertoconcealan

intenttodiscriminateonthebasisofsuspectclassifications.

Furtherbuttressingthisinference,theComplaintassertsthatMDCstaff

usedracially,ethnically,andreligiouslychargedlanguagetorefertotheMDC

Plaintiffs.Seeid.109(MDCstaffreferredtotheMDCPlaintiffsasterroristsand

insultedtheirreligion);id.110(SaeedHammoudaandotherscomplainedthat

MDCstaffcalledthemcamel[s]);id.136(MDCstaffmockedPlaintiffs

prayersandinterruptedtheirprayingbyscreamingderogatoryantiMuslim

comments);id.218(duringhistransportandprocessingHammoudawas

10

calledArabicasshole).TheseallegationsaresupportedbytheOIGreports.

11

SeeOIGReportat144(notingallegationsthatMDCofficersusedracialslurs);

12

SupplementalOIGReportat2830(concludingthatsomeMDCstaffverbally

13

abuseddetaineesbasedontheirMuslimfaith,amongothergrounds).

14

ThecontextinwhichthetermterroristwasusedattheMDCbolstersthe

15

inferencethattheMDCPlaintiffswerebelievedtobeterroristssimplybecause

16

theywere,orwereperceivedtobe,AraborMuslim.Significantly,theterm

17

terroristwasnotusedinisolation.Rather,MDCstaffcalledtheMDC

18

PlaintiffsfuckingMuslimsandterrorists,Compl.147,aswellas

90

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page91 of 109

terroristandArabicasshole,id.218;seealsoSupplementalOIGReportat

28(notingthatalongwiththetermterrorists,MDCstaffreferredtodetainees

asfuckingMuslimsandbinLadenJunior(internalquotationmarks

omitted)).

Whilemostoftheaforementionedcommentsarenotdirectlyattributedto

Hasty,Sherman,orZenk,Plaintiffsdoallegethattheuseofracially,ethnically,

andreligiouslychargedlanguagewasbroughttotheattentionoftheMDC

DefendantsthroughdetaineecomplaintsandreportsfromMDCstaff,among

othermeans.MereknowledgeoftheMDCstaffsdiscriminatorycomments,of

10

course,isinsufficienttoinfershareddiscriminatoryintentbyHasty,Sherman,or

11

Zenk.SeeIqbal,556U.S.at67677.However,withrespecttoHasty,Plaintiffs

12

allegemorethanmereawarenessoftheMDCstaffsdiscriminatorytreatmentof

13

theMDCPlaintiffs.PlaintiffsclaimthatHastyfosteredtheMDCstaffsuseof

14

discriminatorylanguagetorefertotheMDCPlaintiffsbyhimselfreferringto

15

thedetaineesasterrorists,Compl.77,seealsoid.109,notwithstanding

16

HastysknowledgethattheMDCPlaintiffslackedtiestoterrorism.Hastys

17

knowledgeaboutthechargedmannerinwhichthetermterroristwasusedto

18

refertotheMDCPlaintiffs,andhispersonaluseoftheterminthatcontext,

91

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page92 of 109

rendersevenmoreplausibletheconclusionthatheapprovedthefalsedocument

justifyingtheMDCPlaintiffsdetentionintheADMAXSHUbasedon

discriminatoryanimus.Giventhefactthatthe9/11hijackerswereArab

Muslims,andHastyknewthattherewerenoarticulabletiesbetweentheMDC

Plaintiffsandterrorism,PlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatHastyreferredtotheMDC

Plaintiffsasterrorists,andtreatedthemasiftheywere,simplybecausethey

were,orhebelievedthemtobe,AraborMuslim.

Inviewoftheforegoing,theMDCPlaintiffshavestatedaplausibleclaim

thatHastyandShermandetainedtheminthechallengedconditionsbecauseof

10

theirrace,ethnicity,religion,and/ornationalorigin.TheseDefendantsapproval

11

ofthefalsedocument,andHastysuseofchargedlanguageintheparticular

12

contextoftheMDCPlaintiffsdetention,supportthereasonableinferencethat

13

HastyandShermansubjectedtheMDCPlaintiffstoharshconditionsof

14

confinementbasedonsuspectclassifications.

15

WithrespecttoZenk,theMDCPlaintiffsallegationsaremorelimitedand

16

failtosupportthereasonableinferencethatheestablishedorimplementedthe

17

allegedconditionsofconfinementbasedonanimusthatoffendsnotionsofequal

18

protection.

92

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page93 of 109

D. QualifiedImmunity

TheDOJDefendants,Hasty,andShermanarenotentitledtoqualified

immunityontheMDCPlaintiffsequalprotectionclaim.Withregardtothefirst

prongofthisinquiry,whetherthecomplaintplausiblypleadsthatadefendant

personallyviolatedtheplaintiffsconstitutionalrights,forthereasonsstated

above,theMDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedthatAshcroft,Mueller,Ziglar,

Hasty,andShermanviolatedtheirrightsundertheequalprotectionguarantee.

8
9

Withrespecttothesecondprongoftheinquiry,itwasclearlyestablishedat
thetimeofPlaintiffsdetentionthatitwasillegaltoholdindividualsinharsh

10

conditionsofconfinementandotherwisetargetthemformistreatmentbecauseof

11

theirrace,ethnicity,religion,and/ornationalorigin.Plaintiffsrightnottobe

12

subjectedtoethnicorreligiousdiscrimination[]w[as]...clearlyestablishedprior

13

to9/11,and...remainedclearlyestablishedevenintheaftermathofthathorrific

14

event.Hasty,490F.3dat160.InHasty,theplaintiffallegedthathewas

15

deemedtobeofhighinterest,andaccordinglywaskeptintheADMAXSHU

16

underharshconditions,solelybecauseofhisrace,ethnicity,andreligion,and

17

thatDefendantsspecificallytargeted[him]formistreatmentbecauseof[his]

18

race,religion,andnationalorigin.Id.at174(alterationsinoriginal).We

93

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page94 of 109

concludedthatanyreasonablycompetentofficerwouldunderstand[those

allegedactions]tohavebeenillegalunderpriorcaselaw.Id.(internalquotation

marksomitted).Thereisnoreasonthatthisanalysisshouldnotgovernhere.

Although,asthedissentnotes,seeDissentingOp.,postat62,Hastyemployeda

morelenientpleadingstandardthanwhatwenowutilizeinassessingfactual

allegations,thishardlypreventsusfromrelyingonitsconclusionsastowhether

certainlegalprincipleswereclearlyestablishedatthetimeofPlaintiffs

detention.Accordingly,inviewofthesufficiencyoftheMDCPlaintiffs

allegationshere,theDOJDefendants,Hasty,andShermanarenotentitledto

10
11

qualifiedimmunityonthisclaim.
Wereversetheportionofthedistrictcourtsdecisionthatdismissedthe

12

MDCPlaintiffsequalprotectionclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants,affirmthe

13

districtcourtsdenialofHastyandShermansmotionstodismisstheMDC

14

Plaintiffsclaim,andreversethedistrictcourtsdecisiondenyingZenksmotion

15

todismisstheequalprotectionclaim.

16

BecausethePassaicPlaintiffswereheldinthegeneralpopulationandnot

17

theADMAXSHU,weagreewiththedistrictcourtthattheyhavefailedto

18

adequatelypleadthattheyweresubjectedtoharshconditionsofconfinement

94

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page95 of 109

becauseoftheirrace,ethnicity,religion,and/ornationalorigin.Thus,weaffirm

thedistrictcourtsdismissalofthePassaicPlaintiffsequalprotectionclaim.

V.

Claim6:

UnreasonableandPunitiveStripSearches

TheMDCPlaintiffsclaimthattheyweresubjecttounreasonableand

4
5

punitivestripsearcheswhiledetainedattheMDC,inviolationoftheFourthand

FifthAmendments.41
A. ApplicableLegalStandard

Determiningthelegalstandardthatappliestothisclaimturnsonwhether

8
9

theMDCPlaintiffswereheldinaprisonorajail.SeeHasty,490F.3dat172.In

10

Hasty,wedecidedthattheplaintiff,whowasdetainedintheADMAXSHUat

11

theMDC(liketheMDCPlaintiffshere),shouldbetreatedinaccordancewiththe

12

standardgoverningprisons.Seeid.Underthatstandard,aregulationisvalidif

13

itisreasonablyrelatedtolegitimatepenologicalinterests.Turnerv.Safley,482

OnlytheMDCPlaintiffsassertthisclaim,whichisonlyraisedagainsttheMDC
Defendants.BenattaandHammoudaaloneassertthisclaimagainstZenk.Tothe
extentthattheMDCPlaintiffsallegationsregardingthestripsearchesarecognizable
undertheFifthAmendment,wefactortheseallegationsintoouranalysisofthe
substantivedueprocessclaim,whichisdiscussedabove.SeesupraSectionIII.C.
41

95

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page96 of 109

U.S.78,89(1987).Giventhatthepartiesheredonotargueforadifferent

standard,weassumethattheforegoingstandardappliesinthiscase.42
B. TheMDCDefendants

TheMDCPlaintiffsallegethatDefendantJosephCuciti,aformerlieutenant

4
5

attheMDCandnotapartyonappeal,wastaskedwithdevelopingthestrip

searchpolicyontheADMAX[SHU].Compl.111.Plaintiffsfurtherclaimthat

Hastyordered...Cucititodesignextremelyrestrictiveconditionsof

confinement.Id.75.Thereasonableinferencebasedontheseallegationsis

thatHastyorderedCucititodevelopthestripsearchpolicy,whichwasthen

10

approvedandimplementedbyHastyandSherman,and,later,byZenk.Id.
Plaintiffsallegethatthe9/11detaineesattheMDCwerestripsearched

11
12

uponarrival,andagainaftertheyhadbeenescortedinshacklesandunder

13

continuousguardtotheADMAXSHU.Theywerealsostripsearchedevery

14

timetheyweretakenfromorreturnedtotheircells,includingafternoncontact

Wenote,however,thatthisstandardgovernsprisonregulations,seeTurner,482U.S.
at89,andthattheapplicationofthisstandardinHastymayhavebeenjustifiedbecause
theplaintiffinthatcasefacedcriminalcharges(apparentlyfelonies),see490F.3dat147
48&n.1,162n.8,172.Incontrast,Plaintiffsherewerealmostexclusivelychargedwith
civilimmigrationviolationsandweredetainedonthatbasis.Whileitmaybethata
differentstandard,onemorefavorabletodetainees,shouldgoverntheconstitutionality
ofsearchesinthecontextofcivilimmigrationdetention,weleavethatquestionfor
anotherday.
42

96

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page97 of 109

attorneyvisits,whenphysicalcontactbetweenpartieswaspreventedbyaclear

partition,OIGReportat123,andwhenbeingtransferredfromonecellto

another.BenattawasstripsearchedonSeptember23,24,and26of2001,even

thoughhewasnotletoutofhiscellonanyofthosedays.Numerousstrip

searchesweredocumentedinavisualsearchlogthatwascreatedforreview

byMDCmanagement,includingHasty.Compl.114(internalquotationmarks

omitted).

8
9

Plaintiffsallegationsregardingthestripsearchesaresupportedbythe
SupplementalOIGReport,whichconcludedthatMDCstaffinappropriately

10

usedstripsearchestointimidateandpunishdetainees.SupplementalOIG

11

Reportat35.Thatreportalsoquestionedtheneedforthenumberofstrip

12

searches,suchasafterattorneyandsocialvisitsinnoncontactrooms.Id.

13

Theforegoingallegations,supportedastheyarebytheSupplementalOIG

14

Report,aresufficienttoestablishatthisstageofthelitigationthatHastyand

15

Shermanwerepersonallyinvolvedincreatingandexecutingastripsearch

16

policythatwasnotreasonablyrelatedtolegitimatepenologicalinterests.Hasty

17

orderedthepolicy,andbothheandShermanapprovedandimplementedit.

18

Underthatpolicy,theMDCPlaintiffswerestripsearchedwhentherewasno

97

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page98 of 109

possibilitythattheycouldhaveobtainedcontraband.Plaintiffshaveallegedthat

HastyandShermanwereawareofthesesearcheseitherbasedonthesearchlog

thatwascreatedforreviewbyMDCmanagement,orbecausetheywere

involvedintheimplementationofthestripsearchpolicy.43Theseallegations

giverisetoaplausibleFourthAmendmentclaimagainstHastyandSherman.

SeeHasty,490F.3dat172(findingaplausibleallegationofaFourthAmendment

violationinthepost9/11contextwheretheplaintiffallegedthathewas

routinelystripsearchedtwiceafterreturningfromthemedicalclinicorcourtand

that,ononeoccasion,[he]wassubjectedtothreeserialstripandbodycavity

10

searchesinthesameroom);Hodgesv.Stanley,712F.2d34,35(2dCir.1983)

11

(notingthatbecausetherewasnopossibilitythat[theplaintiff]couldhave

12

obtainedandconcealedcontraband[]...thesecondsearchappearstohavebeen

13

unnecessary).44

TotheextentthedissentbelievesthatwepremiseHastyandShermanspersonal
involvemententirelyontheseDefendantsallegedreviewofthevisualsearchlog,see
DissentingOp.,postat90,thatassertionisincorrect.Asdiscussed,Plaintiffshave
plausiblyallegedthatHastyorderedthedevelopmentof,andthatheandSherman
approvedandimplemented,thechallengedstripsearchpolicy.Plaintiffsallegations
regardingthevisualsearchlogonlybuttresstheinferenceofHastyspersonal
involvement.
44AlthoughthedissentcorrectlynotesthatHodgeswasdecidedbeforetheSupreme
CourtsopinioninTurner,seeDissentingOp.,postat88,wehaveratifiedHodgesin
subsequentstripsearchcaselaw.SeeHasty,490F.3dat172;N.G.v.Connecticut,382F.3d
43

98

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page99 of 109

WithrespecttoZenk,however,theMDCPlaintiffsfailtostateaplausible

FourthAmendmentclaim.Asnotedearlier,Plaintiffsdonotassertanyclaim

againstZenkforinjuriestheysufferedpriortothedateonwhichhebecame

WardenoftheMDC,whichwasApril22,2002.OnlytwoPlaintiffs,Benattaand

Hammouda,werestilldetainedattheMDCasofthatdate.ThesePlaintiffshave

notsufficientlyallegedthattheywereunlawfullystripsearchedduringthe

periodinwhichZenkwasWardenoftheMDC.

8
9

C. QualifiedImmunity
HastyandShermanarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityontheMDC

10

Plaintiffsstripsearchclaim.Withrespecttothefirstprongofthequalified

11

immunityanalysis,PlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedthatHastyandSherman

12

eachviolatedtheMDCPlaintiffsrightsundertheFourthAmendment.With

13

regardtothesecondprongoftheinquiry,PlaintiffsFourthAmendmentrights

14

wereclearlyestablishedatthetimeofthesearchesatissue.

225,23334(2dCir.2004).Similarly,werejectthedissentsattempttoconfineHodgesto
itsfacts,onlyfindingtheabsenceofalegitimatepenologicalpurposewherethestrip
searchesareimmediatelysuccessive.DissentingOp.,postat88(emphasisadded).
Likepreviouspanels,wereadHodgesasholdingthatasearchmaybeunnecessaryand
purposelesswheretherewasnopossibilitythat[theplaintiff]couldhaveobtainedand
concealedcontraband.712F.2dat35;seealsoN.G.,382F.3dat23334.Here,consistent
withHodges,Plaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedthattheywerestripsearchedwhenthere
wasnoopportunitytoacquirecontraband,includingininstanceswheretheywere
shackledandunderescort,orwereneverpermittedtoleavetheircells.

99

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page100 of 109

InHasty,wedeniedHastyqualifiedimmunityontheplaintiffsFourth

1
2

Amendmentclaim,statingthatinthewakeof9/11itwasclearlyestablished

thateventhestandardmostfavorabletoprisonofficialsrequiredthatstripand

bodycavitysearchesberationallyrelatedtolegitimategovernmentpurposes.

490F.3dat172;seealsoid.at15960(therightnottobeneedlesslyharassedand

mistreatedintheconfinesofaprisoncellbyrepeatedstripandbodycavity

searcheswasclearlyestablishedpriorto9/11,and...remainedclearly

establishedevenintheaftermathofthathorrificevent).BecausetheMDC

PlaintiffsclaimhereissubstantiallythesameastheFourthAmendmentclaimat

10

issueinHasty,weareboundbythatdecisionandthusdenyHastyandSherman

11

qualifiedimmunityontheFourthAmendmentclaiminthiscase.
Accordingly,weaffirmthedistrictcourtsdenialofHastyandShermans

12
13

motionstodismisstheMDCPlaintiffsFourthAmendmentstripsearchclaim,

14

andreversethedistrictcourtsdenialofZenksmotiontodismissthisclaim.

15

VI.

16
17

Claim7:

ConspiracyUnder42U.S.C.1985

PlaintiffsfinalclaimisthatDefendantsconspiredtodeprivethemoftheir
rightsinviolationof42U.S.C.1985(3).

100

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page101 of 109

A. ApplicableLegalStandard

AconspiracyclaimunderSection1985(3)hasfourelements:(1)a

2
3

conspiracy,(2)forthepurposeofdeprivinganypersonorclassofpersonsofthe

equalprotectionofthelawsorofequalprivilegesandimmunitiesunderthe

laws,(3)anactinfurtheranceoftheconspiracy,and(4)wherebyapersonis

injuredinhispersonorpropertyordeprivedofarightorprivilegeofacitizen.

Hasty,490F.3dat176.45Inaddition,thisclaimrequiresthattheremustbesome

racial,orperhapsotherwiseclassbased,invidiouslydiscriminatoryanimus

behindtheconspiratorsaction.Griffinv.Breckenridge,403U.S.88,102(1971);

10

accordReynoldsv.Barrett,685F.3d193,20102(2dCir.2012).
B. TheSufficiencyoftheAllegations

11
12

Inthiscase,theMDCPlaintiffshavesufficientlyallegedthatAshcroft,

13

Mueller,andZiglarmetregularlyandeventuallyagreedtosubjectthedetainees

14

tothechallengedconditionsofconfinementbymerging,andcomplyingwiththe

45

Section1985(3)ofTitle42oftheUnitedStatesCodeprovides,inpertinentpart,that:
IftwoormorepersonsinanyStateorTerritoryconspire...forthepurposeof
depriving,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,anypersonorclassofpersonsoftheequal
protectionofthelaws,orofequalprivilegesandimmunitiesunderthelaws;...
ifoneormorepersonsengagedthereindo,orcausetobedone,anyactin
furtheranceoftheobjectofsuchconspiracy,...thepartysoinjuredordeprived
mayhaveanactionfortherecoveryofdamagesoccasionedbysuchinjuryor
deprivation,againstanyoneormoreoftheconspirators.

101

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page102 of 109

mergerof,theNewYorkList.TheMDCPlaintiffshavealsoplausiblyalleged

thattheDOJDefendantsactionswithrespecttotheNewYorkListmergerwere

basedonthediscriminatoryanimusrequiredforaSection1985(3)conspiracy

claim,asweconcludeaboveinouranalysisoftheequalprotectionclaim.With

respecttoHastyandSherman,theirjointapprovalofthefalsedocumentwithout

performingtherequisiteindividualizedassessmentsupportsthereasonable

inferencethatthesetwoDefendantscametoanagreementtoanddidsubject

Plaintiffstoharshconditionsofconfinementbasedonthediscriminatoryanimus

requiredbySection1985(3).

10

Plaintiffsalsoallegeanagreement,albeitnotanexplicitone,amongthe

11

DOJDefendantsandHastyandShermantoeffectuatetheharshconditionsof

12

confinementwithdiscriminatoryintent.Suchatacitagreementcansuffice

13

underSection1985(3).SeeWebbv.Goord,340F.3d105,11011(2dCir.2003).The

14

ComplaintassertsthattheconditionsofconfinementattheMDCwere

15

formulatedinconsultationwiththeFBI.Compl.65.Inaddition,Hasty

16

ordered,andHastyandShermanapprovedandimplemented,theconditionsof

17

confinement[t]ocarryoutAshcroft,Mueller[,]andZiglarsunwrittenpolicyto

18

subjectthe9/11detaineestoharshtreatment.Id.75;seealsoid.68.The

102

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page103 of 109

foregoingallegationsaresufficienttosupportthereasonableinferencethatthe

DOJDefendants,Hasty,andShermansharedsuchatacitunderstandingabout

carryingouttheunlawfulconductwithrespecttotheMDCPlaintiffsdetention.

Accordingly,theMDCPlaintiffsallegationsstateaplausibleclaimfora

Section1985(3)conspiracyagainstAshcroft,Mueller,Ziglar,Hasty,and

Sherman.

C. TheIntracorporateConspiracyDoctrine

TheMDCDefendantsarguethattheyarelegallyincapableofconspiring

witheachother,andwiththeDOJDefendants,becausetheyareallpartofthe

10

samegovernmentalentitytheDOJ.InGirardv.94thStreet&FifthAvenueCorp.,

11

530F.2d66,7072(2dCir.1976),werecognizedthatthedefendantsofficers

12

anddirectorsofasinglecorporation,andthecorporationitselfcouldnot

13

legallyconspirewithoneanotherinviolationofSection1985(3).Wereached

14

thatconclusionbecausethedefendantsformedasinglebusinessentitywitha

15

managerialpolicyimplementedbytheonegoverningboard.Id.at71.Thus,

16

thedefendantscouldnotsatisfythestatutoryrequirementofaconspiracy

17

betweentwoormorepersons.Id.Wealsonoted,however,thatwherevarious

18

entitiesinasingleinstitutionhavedisparateresponsibilitiesandfunctions,a

103

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page104 of 109

conspiracyclaimcouldliebecausetheactionsofthoseentitieswouldnotbe

actionsofonlyonepolicymakingbody.Id.
AssumingthatDefendantscanultimatelyinvoketheintracorporate

3
4

conspiracydoctrineinthiscase,atthisstageofthelitigation,wecannotconclude

thatAshcroft,Mueller,Ziglar,Hasty,andShermanactedasmembersofasingle

policymakingentityforpurposesoftheMDCPlaintiffsSection1985(3)

conspiracyclaim.AccordingtotheComplaint,theformerAttorneyGeneral,the

formerDirectoroftheFBI,theformerCommissioneroftheINS,andtheformer

WardenandAssociateWardenattheMDChadvariedresponsibilitiesand

10

functionsthatdistinguishthemfromthesinglecorporateentityinGirard.

11

AlthoughHastyandShermanmayhaveacted,atleastinpart,toimplementthe

12

DOJDefendantspolicy,itisalsothecasethatHastyandShermanthemselves

13

establishedpoliciesattheMDC.Thus,factualquestionsabouthowdisparateor

14

distinctDefendantsfunctionswere,andhowpolicywascreatedbythevarious

15

Defendants,precludeusfromdecidingasamatteroflawthatDefendants

16

resemblethesinglepolicymakingbodyofacorporation.46

WenotethattheBOPand,therefore,theMDC,aresubjecttothesupervisionofthe
AttorneyGeneral.See18U.S.C.4041.Wehavealsofoundoneunpublisheddistrict
courtdecisionthatconcludesthattheAttorneyGeneralandemployeesofaBOPfacility
46

104

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page105 of 109

1
2

D. QualifiedImmunity
TheDOJDefendants,Hasty,andShermanarenotentitledtoqualified

immunityonthisclaim.First,theMDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegeda

Section1985(3)conspiracyclaimagainsttheseDefendants.Inaddition,aswe

concludedinHasty,inthewakeofthe9/11attacks,evenwithoutadefinitive

rulingfromthisCourtontheapplicationofsection1985(3)tofederalofficials,

federalofficialscouldnotreasonablyhavebelievedthatitwaslegally

permissibleforthemtoconspirewithotherfederalofficialstodepriveaperson

ofequalprotectionofthelaws.490F.3dat177.Inthatcase,wedeniedthe

10

defendantsqualifiedimmunityontheSection1985(3)claim.Seeid.Giventhe

11

sufficiencyoftheallegationsinthiscase,ourqualifiedimmunitydecisionin

12

Hastycontrolshere.

13

Accordingly,wereversethedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheSection1985(3)

14

claimagainsttheDOJDefendantsandaffirmthedenialofHastyandShermans

15

motionstodismissthisclaim.BecausetheMDCPlaintiffsfailtoadequately

cannotconspiretogetherunderSection1985.SeeChesserv.Walton,No.12cv01198
JPG,2013WL1962285,at*3(S.D.Ill.May10,2013).However,forthereasonsstated
above,neitherthisstatutoryprovisionnordistrictcourtcasesatisfyusthatDefendants
hereweresufficientlysimilartothemembersofasinglecorporatepolicymakingbody
suchthattheintracorporateconspiracydoctrineshouldapply.

105

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page106 of 109

pleadthatZenkactedwithdiscriminatoryanimus,wereversethedenialof

Zenksmotiontodismisstheconspiracyclaim.Thisclaimisalsodismissedwith

respecttothePassaicPlaintiffs,astheyfailtoadequatelypleadthatDefendants

actedwiththerequisitediscriminatoryanimus.

VII. FinalThoughts

Ifthereisoneguidingprincipletoournationitistheruleoflaw.It

protectstheunpopularview,itrestrainsfearbasedresponsesintimesoftrouble,

anditsanctifiesindividuallibertyregardlessofwealth,faith,orcolor.The

ConstitutiondefinesthelimitsoftheDefendantsauthority;detaining

10

individualsasiftheywereterrorists,inthemostrestrictiveconditionsof

11

confinementavailable,simplybecausetheseindividualswere,orappearedtobe,

12

AraborMuslimexceedsthoselimits.Itmightwellbethatnationalsecurity

13

concernsmotivatedtheDefendantstotakeaction,butthatisoflittlesolaceto

14

thosewhofeltthebruntofthatdecision.Thesufferingenduredbythosewho

15

wereimprisonedmerelybecausetheywerecaughtupinthehysteriaofthedays

16

immediatelyfollowing9/11isnotwithoutaremedy.

17
18

Holdingindividualsinsolitaryconfinementtwentythreehoursadaywith
regularstripsearchesbecausetheirperceivedfaithorraceplacedtheminthe

106

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page107 of 109

grouptargetedforrecruitmentbyalQaedaviolatedthedetaineesconstitutional

rights.Tousesuchabroadandgeneralbasisforsuchsevereconfinement

withoutanyfurtherparticularizationofareasontosuspectanindividuals

connectiontoterroristactivitiesrequirescertainassumptionsaboutthetargeted

groupnotofferedbyDefendantsnorsupportedintherecord.Itassumesthat

membersofthegroupwerealreadyalliedwithorwouldbeeasilyconvertedto

theterroristcause,untilprovenotherwise.Whyelsewouldnofurther

particularizationofaconnectiontoterrorismberequired?Perceived

membershipinthetargetedgroupwasseeminglyenoughtojustifyextended

10
11

confinementinthemostrestrictiveconditionsavailable.
DiscoverymayshowthattheDefendantstheDOJDefendants,in

12

particulararenotpersonallyresponsiblefordetainingPlaintiffsinthese

13

conditions.Butwesimplycannotconcludeatthisstagethatconcernforthe

14

safetyofournationjustifiedtheviolationoftheconstitutionalrightsonwhich

15

thisnationwasbuilt.Thequestionatthisstageofthelitigationiswhetherthe

16

MDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblypleadedthattheDefendantsexceededthebounds

17

oftheConstitutioninthewakeof9/11.Webelievethattheyhave.

107

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page108 of 109

1
2

CONCLUSION
Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirminpartandreverseinpartthedistrict

courtsdecisiononDefendantsRule12(b)(6)motions.Morespecifically,we

concludethat:(1)theMDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedasubstantivedue

processclaimagainsttheDOJDefendants,againstHastywithregardtoboth

officialandunofficialconditions,andagainstShermanwithregardtoofficial

conditionsonly,andtheseDefendantsarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityon

thisclaim;(2)theMDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedanequalprotection

claimagainsttheDOJDefendants,Hasty,andSherman,andtheseDefendants

10

arenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityonthisclaim;(3)thefreeexerciseclaimis

11

dismissedastoallDefendants;(4)theMDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyalleged

12

theirFourthAmendmentstripsearchclaimagainstHastyandSherman,and

13

theseDefendantsarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityonthisclaim;(5)the

14

MDCPlaintiffshaveplausiblyallegedtheSection1985(3)conspiracyclaim

15

againsttheDOJDefendants,Hasty,andSherman,andtheseDefendantsarenot

16

entitledtoqualifiedimmunityonthisclaim;and(6)theMDCPlaintiffshavenot

17

plausiblyallegedanyclaimsagainstZenk.Weaffirmthedismissaloftheclaims

18

broughtbythePassaicPlaintiffs.

108

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page109 of 109

TheClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoenteranorderconsistentwiththese

conclusions,AFFIRMINGinpartandREVERSINGinpart,andREMANDING

themattertothedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis

opinion.

109