Turkmen v. Ashcroft Second Circuit Ruling 6-17-15

109
13‐981 (L) Turkmen, et al. v. Hasty, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2 3 4 August Term, 2013 5 6 (Argued: May 1, 2014 Decided: June 17, 2015) 7 8 Docket Nos. 13‐981, 13‐999, 13‐1002, 13‐1003, 13‐1662 9 10 11 IBRAHIM TURKMEN, AKHIL SACHDEVA, AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, 12 ANSER MEHMOOD, BENAMAR BENATTA, AHMED KHALIFA, 13 SAEED HAMMOUDA, PURNA BAJRACHARYA, on behalf of themselves and 14 all others similarly situated, 15 16 Plaintiffs‐Appellees‐Cross‐Appellants, 17 18 ‐v.‐ 19 20 DENNIS HASTY, former Warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center, 21 MICHAEL ZENK, former Warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center, 22 JAMES SHERMAN, former Metropolitan Detention Center Associate 23 Warden for Custody, 24 25 Defendants‐Appellants, 26 27 JOHN ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, 28 ROBERT MUELLER, former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 29 JAMES W. ZIGLAR, former Commissioner, Immigration and 30 Naturalization Service, 31 32 Defendants‐Cross‐Appellees, 33 34 Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page1 of 109

description

Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 9/11, September 11, 2001,

Transcript of Turkmen v. Ashcroft Second Circuit Ruling 6-17-15

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

    UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2

    34

    AugustTerm,201356

    (Argued:May1,2014Decided:June17,2015)78

    DocketNos.13981,13999,131002,131003,131662910

    11IBRAHIMTURKMEN,AKHILSACHDEVA,AHMERIQBALABBASI,12ANSERMEHMOOD,BENAMARBENATTA,AHMEDKHALIFA,13

    SAEEDHAMMOUDA,PURNABAJRACHARYA,onbehalfofthemselvesand14allotherssimilarlysituated,15

    16PlaintiffsAppelleesCrossAppellants, 17

    18v.19

    20DENNISHASTY,formerWardenoftheMetropolitanDetentionCenter,21MICHAELZENK,formerWardenoftheMetropolitanDetentionCenter,22JAMESSHERMAN,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterAssociate23

    WardenforCustody,2425 DefendantsAppellants,2627

    JOHNASHCROFT,formerAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStates,28ROBERTMUELLER,formerDirector,FederalBureauofInvestigation,29

    JAMESW.ZIGLAR,formerCommissioner,Immigrationand30NaturalizationService,31

    32 DefendantsCrossAppellees,3334

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

  • 2

    SALVATORELOPRESTI,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterCaptain,1JOSEPHCUCITI,formerMetropolitanDetentionCenterLieutenant,2

    3 Defendants.*4

    56Before: 7

    POOLER,RAGGI,ANDWESLEY,CircuitJudges.89

    10AppealfromaJanuary15,2013MemorandumandOrderoftheUnitedStates11DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofNewYork(Gleeson,J.)grantinginpart12anddenyinginpartDefendantsmotionstodismiss.CrossappealfromanApril1310,2013JudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictof14NewYork(Gleeson,J.),whichwasenteredpursuanttoRule54(b)oftheFederal15RulesofCivilProcedureonApril11,2013,grantingcertainDefendantsmotions16todismiss.WeAFFIRMinpartandREVERSEinpart.JudgeRaggiconcursin17partinthejudgmentanddissentsinpartinaseparateopinion.18

    19RACHELA.MEEROPOL,CenterforConstitutionalRights,20NewYork,NY(MichaelWinger,SunitaPatel,BaherA.21Azmy,CenterforConstitutionalRights,NewYork,NY;22NancyL.Kestenbaum,JenniferL.Robbins,JoanneSum23Ping,Covington&BurlingLLP,NewYork,NY,onthe24brief),forPlaintiffsAppelleesCrossAppellants.2526HUGHD.SANDLER,Crowell&MoringLLP,NewYork,27NY(ShariRossLahlou,Crowell&MoringLLP,28Washington,D.C.,onthebrief),forDefendantAppellant29DennisHasty.30

    31JOSHUAC.KLEIN(AllanN.Taffet,KirkL.Brett,Megan32E.Uhle,onthebrief),Duval&StachenfeldLLP,New33York,NY,forDefendantAppellantMichaelZenk.34

    *TheClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoamendthecaptionassetforthabove.

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

  • 3

    1JEFFREYA.LAMKEN,MoloLamkenLLP,Washington,2D.C.(MartinV.Totaro,MoloLamkenLLP,Washington,3D.C.;DebraL.Roth,JuliaH.Perkins,Shaw,Bransford4&RothP.C.,Washington,D.C.,onthebrief),for5DefendantAppellantJamesSherman.67H.THOMASBYRONIII,AppellateAttorney,Civil8Division(StuartF.Delery,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,9RonaldC.MachenJr.,UnitedStatesAttorney,Dana10Boente,UnitedStatesAttorney,BarbaraL.Herwig,11AppellateAttorney,CivilDivision,onthebrief),U.S.12DepartmentofJustice,Washington,D.C.,forDefendants13CrossAppelleesJohnAshcroftandRobertMueller.14

    15WILLIAMALDENMCDANIEL,JR.,BallardSpahrLLP,16Baltimore,MD,forDefendantCrossAppelleeJamesW.17Ziglar.18

    19TrinaRealmuto,NationalImmigrationProjectofthe20NationalLawyersGuild,Boston,MA;MaryKenney,21AmericanImmigrationCouncil,Washington,D.C.,22amicicuriaeinsupportofPlaintiffsAppelleesCross23Appellants.24

    2526

    POOLERANDWESLEY,CircuitJudges:27

    OnSeptember11,2001,19ArabMuslimhijackerswhocounted28

    themselvesmembersingoodstandingofalQaedahijackedfourairplanesand29

    killedover3,000peopleonAmericansoil.Ashcroftv.Iqbal(Iqbal),556U.S.662,30

    682(2009).Thiscaseraisesadifficultanddelicatesetoflegalissuesconcerning31

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

  • 4

    individualswhowerecaughtupinthepost9/11investigationeventhoughthey1

    wereunquestionablyneverinvolvedinterroristactivity.Plaintiffsareeight2

    male,outofstatusaliens1whowerearrestedonimmigrationchargesand3

    detainedfollowingthe9/11attacks.PlaintiffswereheldattheMetropolitan4

    DetentionCenter(theMDC)inBrooklyn,NewYork,orthePassaicCountyJail5

    (Passaic)inPaterson,NewJersey;theirindividualdetentionsgenerallyranged6

    fromapproximatelythreetoeightmonths.7

    Theoperativecomplaint,aputativeclassaction,assertsvariousclaims8

    againstformerAttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroft;formerDirectoroftheFederal9

    BureauofInvestigation(theFBI)RobertMueller;formerCommissionerofthe10

    ImmigrationandNaturalizationService(theINS)JamesZiglar;formerMDC11

    WardenDennisHasty;formerMDCWardenMichaelZenk;andformerMDC12

    AssociateWardenJamesSherman.2Allclaimsariseoutofallegedly13

    1Weusethetermoutofstatusalientomeanonewhohaseither(1)enteredtheUnitedStatesillegallyandisdeportableifapprehended,or(2)enteredtheUnitedStateslegallybutwhohasfallenoutofstatusbyviolatingtherulesorguidelinesforhisnonimmigrantstatus(oftenbyoverstayinghisvisa)intheUnitedStatesandisdeportable.2Foreaseofreference,werefertoAshcroft,Mueller,andZiglarcollectivelyastheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)Defendants,andHasty,Sherman,andZenkcollectivelyastheMDCDefendants.TheoperativecomplaintalsoallegesclaimsagainstMDCofficialsJosephCucitiandSalvatoreLopresti.Cucitididnotappealthedistrictcourtsdecision,andLoprestifiledanoticeofappealbutdidnottimelypaythefilingfeeorfile

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

  • 5

    discriminatoryandpunitivetreatmentPlaintiffssufferedwhileconfinedatthe1

    MDCorPassaic.2

    BACKGROUND3

    I. ProceduralHistory34

    PlaintiffsinitiatedthisactionoverthirteenyearsagoonApril17,2002.5

    Overthefollowingtwoandonehalfyears,Plaintiffsamendedtheircomplaint6

    threetimes.InJune2006,followingaseriesofmotionstodismiss,thedistrict7

    courtdismissedPlaintiffsunlawfullengthofdetentionclaimsbutpermittedto8

    proceed,interalia,thesubstantivedueprocessandequalprotectionclaims9

    challengingtheconditionsofconfinementattheMDC.SeeTurkmenv.Ashcroft10

    (TurkmenI),No.02CV2307(JG),2006WL1662663,at*3336,4041(E.D.N.Y.11

    June14,2006),affdinpart,vacatedinpart,Turkmenv.Ashcroft(TurkmenII),58912

    F.3d542(2dCir.2009)(percuriam),remandedtoTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat13

    314.PlaintiffsandDefendantsappealedvariousaspectsofthatruling.14

    Twosignificanteventsoccurredwhiletheappealwaspending.First,six15

    oftheoriginaleightnamedPlaintiffsatthattimewithdreworsettledtheirclaims16abrief.LoprestisappealwasdismissedpursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure31(c).Thus,wedonotaddresstheclaimsagainstCucitiandLopresti.3Foramorecomprehensivereviewofthiscasesproceduralhistory,seeTurkmenv.Ashcroft(TurkmenIII),915F.Supp.2d314,33133(E.D.N.Y.2013).

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

  • 6

    againstthegovernment.SeeTurkmenII,589F.3dat544n.1,545.Thisleftonly1

    IbrahimTurkmenandAkhilSachdeva,bothofwhomweredetainedatPassaic,2

    asopposedtotheMDC.Second,theSupremeCourtissuedIqbal,556U.S.at662,3

    whichalteredthepleadingregimegoverningPlaintiffsclaims.Inlightofthese4

    eventsandtheremainingPlaintiffsstateddesiretorepleadclaimsuniquetothe5

    settlingPlaintiffs,thisCourtaffirmedthedismissalofthelengthofdetention6

    claimsbutvacatedandremandedwithrespecttotheconditionsofconfinement7

    claims.SeeTurkmenII,589F.3dat54647,54950.8

    Onremand,thedistrictcourtpermittedPlaintiffstoamendtheircomplaint9

    andgrantedleaveforsixadditionalPlaintiffs,allofwhomhadbeenheldatthe10

    MDC,tointervene.TheeightcurrentnamedPlaintiffsareofMiddleEastern,11

    NorthAfrican,orSouthAsianorigin;sixofthemareMuslim,oneisHindu,and12

    oneisBuddhist.TheFourthAmendedComplaint(theComplaint),the13

    operativecomplaintinthiscase,restatesPlaintiffsputativeclassclaimson14

    behalfofthe9/11detainees,aclassofsimilarlysituatednoncitizenswhoare15

    Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page6 of 109

  • 7

    AraborMuslim,orwereperceivedbyDefendantsasAraborMuslim,andwere1

    arrestedanddetainedinresponsetothe9/11attacks.42

    TheComplaintdramaticallywinnowedtherelevantclaimsand3

    defendants;itallegessevenclaimsagainsteightdefendants.Thefirstsixclaims,4

    allbroughtpursuanttoBivensv.SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFederalBureauof5

    Narcotics,403U.S.388(1971),are:(1)aconditionsofconfinementclaimunderthe6

    DueProcessClause;(2)anequalprotectionclaimallegingthatDefendants7

    subjectedPlaintiffstothechallengedconditionsbecauseoftheir,ortheir8

    perceived,race,religion,ethnicity,and/ornationalorigin;(3)aclaimarising9

    undertheFreeExerciseClause;(4)and(5)twoclaimsgenerallyalleging10

    interferencewithcounsel;and(6)aclaimundertheFourthandFifth11

    Amendmentsallegingunreasonableandpunitivestripsearches.Theseventh12

    andfinalclaimallegesaconspiracyunder42U.S.C.1985(3).TheDOJand13

    MDCDefendantsmovedtodismisstheComplaintforfailuretostateaclaim,on14

    4BenamarBenattawasoriginallydetainedbyCanadianauthoritiesonSeptember5,2001,aftercrossingtheCanadianborderwithfalsedocumentation.FollowingtheSeptember11attacks,BenattawastransportedbacktotheUnitedStatesanddetainedinthechallengedconditionsofconfinementandpursuanttothepost9/11investigation;therefore,wecallhima9/11detainee.

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

  • 8

    qualifiedimmunitygrounds,and,insomeinstances,basedonatheorythat1

    Bivensreliefdidnotextendtotheclaimatissue.2

    II. TheOIGReports3

    Plaintiffssupplementedthefactualallegationsintheiramended4

    complaintswithinformationgleanedfromtworeportsbytheOfficeofthe5

    InspectorGeneraloftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice(theOIG6

    reports)5thatdocumentedthefederallawenforcementresponseto9/11and7

    conditionsattheMDCandPassaic.8

    TheOIGreports,whichtheComplaintincorporate[s]byreferenceexcept9

    wherecontradictedbytheallegationsof[theComplaint],Compl.3n.1,seealso10

    id.5n.2,playasignificantroleinthiscase.6Primarily,theOIGreportsprovide11

    5TherearetwoOIGreports.ThefirstOIGreport,publishedinJune2003,coversmultipleaspectsoflawenforcementsresponseto9/11.SeeU.S.DeptofJustice,OfficeoftheInspectorGeneral,TheSeptember11Detainees:AReviewoftheTreatmentofAliensHeldonImmigrationChargesinConnectionwiththeInvestigationoftheSeptember11Attacks(April2003)(theOIGReport),availableathttp://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf.ThesecondOIGreport,publishedinDecember2003,focusesonabusesattheMDC.SeeU.S.DeptofJustice,OfficeoftheInspectorGeneral,SupplementalReportonSeptember11DetaineesAllegationsofAbuseattheMetropolitanDetentionCenterinBrooklyn,NewYork(Dec.2003)(theSupplementalOIGReport),availableathttp://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0312/final.pdf.6VariousDefendantschallengethedistrictcourtsdecisiontoconsidertheOIGreportstotheextentthattheyarenotcontradictedbytheComplaint.Defendantsarecorrectthatacomplaintinclude[s]anywritteninstrumentattachedtoitasanexhibitorany

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

  • 9

    invaluablecontextfortheunprecedentedchallengesfollowing9/11andthe1

    variousstrategiesfederalagenciesemployedtoconfrontthesechallenges.The2

    reportshelporientouranalysisoftheComplaint.3

    III. PlaintiffsAllegations74

    Intheaftermathofthe9/11attacks,theFBIandotheragencieswithinthe5

    DOJimmediatelyinitiatedanimmenseinvestigationaimedatidentifyingthe6

    9/11perpetratorsandpreventinganyfurtherattacks.SeeOIGReportat1,1112.7

    PENTTBOM,thePentagon/TwinTowersBombingsinvestigation,wasinitially8

    runoutoftheFBIsfieldoffices,butshortlythereafter,Muellerorderedthat9

    managementoftheinvestigationbeswitchedtotheFBIsStrategicInformation10

    statementsordocumentsincorporatedinitbyreference.CortecIndus.,Inc.v.SumHoldingL.P.,949F.2d42,47(2dCir.1991);accordDiFolcov.MSNBCCableL.L.C.,622F.3d104,111(2dCir.2010).Buttheirobjectionmissesthepoint.Thedistrictcourtaccuratelyexplainedthatatthepleadingstage,althoughwemustconsiderthewordsonthepage(thatis,wecannotdisregardthefactthattheOIGreportsmakeparticularfindings),weneednotconsiderthetruthofthosewordstotheextentdisputedbyPlaintiffs.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat342n.14(citingDiFolco,622F.3dat111).EvenwerewetoviewtheOIGreportsasfullyincorporated,relianceonanyassertionoffactrequiresacredibilityassessmentthatwearefundamentallyunsuitedtoundertakeattheRule12(b)(6)stage.AndalthoughtheOIGreportscannotdeterminativelyproveordisprovePlaintiffsallegations,theyremainrelevanttoouranalysisbecausetheysupplementourunderstandingofthelawenforcementresponseto9/11.7TheallegationssetforthhereinaredrawnfromtheComplaintandthoseportionsoftheOIGreportsincorporatedbyreference.Seesupranote6.WepresumetheveracityofPlaintiffswellpleadedallegations.Iqbal,556U.S.at679.

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

  • 10

    andOperationsCenter(theSIOC)atFBIHeadquartersinWashington,D.C.1

    MuellerpersonallydirectedPENTTBOMfromtheSIOCandremainedindaily2

    contactwithFBIfieldoffices.3

    InconjunctionwithPENTTBOM,theDeputyAttorneyGeneralsOffice4

    (theDAGsOffice)establishedtheSIOCWorkingGrouptocoordinateefforts5

    amongthevariouscomponentswithinthe[DOJ]thathadaninvestigative6

    interestin[,]orresponsibilityfor[,]theSeptember11detainees.Id.at15.8The7

    SIOCWorkingGroupincludedrepresentativesfrom,amongotheragencies,the8

    FBI,theINS,andtheDAGsOffice.Thisgroupmetdailyifnotmultipletimes9

    inasingledayinthemonthsfollowing9/11;itsdutiesincludedcoordinat[ing]10

    informationandevidencesharingamongtheFBI,INS,andU.S.Attorneys11

    officesandensur[ing]thataliensdetainedaspartofthePENTTBOM12

    investigationwouldnotbereleaseduntiltheywereclearedbytheFBIof13

    involvementwiththeSeptember11attacksorterrorismingeneral.Id.14

    Giventhatthe9/11hijackerswereallforeignnationals,theDOJresponse15

    carriedamajorimmigrationlawcomponent.Seeid.at12.AshcroftandMueller16

    developedapolicywherebyanyMuslimorArabmanencounteredduringthe178TheSIOCWorkingGroupacquiredthisnamebecauseitsinitialmeetingsoccurredattheFBIsSIOC.

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

  • 11

    investigationofatipreceivedinthe9/11terrorisminvestigation...and1

    discoveredtobeanoncitizenwhohadviolatedthetermsofhisvisa,was2

    arrested.Compl.1;seealsoid.3949.Ashcroftalsocreatedtherelated3

    holduntilclearedpolicy,whichmandatedthatindividualsarrestedinthe4

    wakeof9/11notbereleasedfromcustodyuntil[FBIHeadquarters]5

    affirmativelyclearedthemofterroristties.Id.2;seealsoOIGReportat3839.6

    Withinaweekof9/11,theFBIhadreceivedapproximately96,000tipsfrom7

    civiliansacrossthecountry.Thesetipsvariedsignificantlyinqualityand8

    reliability.9Mueller[nonetheless]orderedthateveryoneofthesetipsbe9

    investigated,eveniftheywereimplausibleontheirface.Compl.40.10

    Ultimately,762detaineeswereplacedontheINSCustodyList(theINSList)11

    thatthenmadethemsubjecttoAshcroftsholduntilclearedpolicy.12

    Inthemonthsfollowing9/11,theDOJDefendantsreceiveddetaileddaily13

    reportsofthearrestsanddetentions.Id.47.AshcroftandMuelleralsomet149Forinstance,TurkmencametotheFBIsattentionwhenhislandlordcalledtheFBIs9/11hotlineandreportedthatsherentedanapartmentinherhometoseveralMiddleEasternmen,andshewouldfeelawfulifhertenantswereinvolvedinterrorismandshedidntcall.Compl.251.TheFBIknewthatheronlybasisforsuspectingthesemenwasthattheywereMiddleEastern;indeed,shereportedthattheyweregoodtenants,andpaidtheirrentontime.Id.AnotheralienwasarrestedaftertheFBIreceivedatipthatstatedthatthesmallgrocerystorewhereheworkedwasoverstaffed,thusarousingthetipsterssuspicionsabouttheMiddleEasternmenthatworkedthere.OIGReportat17.

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

  • 12

    regularlywithasmallgroupofgovernmentofficialsinWashington,D.C.,and1

    mappedoutwaystoexertmaximumpressureontheindividualsarrestedin2

    connectionwiththeterrorisminvestigation.Id.61.10Thissmallgroup3

    discussedanddecideduponastrategytorestrictthe9/11detaineesabilityto4

    contacttheoutsideworldanddelaytheirimmigrationhearings.Thegroupalso5

    decidedtospreadthewordamonglawenforcementpersonnelthatthe9/116

    detaineesweresuspectedterrorists[]...andthattheyneededtobeencouraged7

    inanywaypossibletocooperate.Id.8

    Plaintiffs,withtheexceptionofTurkmenandSachdeva,wereheldatthe9

    MDC.UnderMDCconfinementpolicy,the9/11detaineesplacedintheMDC10

    wereheldintheMDCsAdministrativeMaximumSpecialHousingUnit(the11

    ADMAXSHU)aparticularlyrestrictivetypeofSHUnotfoundinmost12

    [BureauofPrisons(BOP)]facilitiesbecausethenormalSHUisusuallysufficient13

    10ItisunclearwhetherthissmallgroupreferstotheSIOCWorkingGrouporadistinctgroupinvolvingAshcroft,Mueller,andotherseniorWashington,D.C.,officials.OnepossibilityisthatPlaintiffsarereferringtothesmallgroupthatconsistedofAshcroft,Mueller,MichaelChertoff,whowasthenAssistantAttorneyGeneraloftheCriminalDivision,andtheDeputyAttorneyGeneral.SeeOIGReportat13.AccordingtoChertoff,thisgroupdiscussedtheDOJspost9/11lawenforcementstrategyandpolicies.GiventhemakeupofthisgroupandtheSIOCWorkingGroup,itisreasonabletoinferthatinformationflowedbetweenthem;forinstance,Chertoffsdeputy,AliceFisher,wasplacedinchargeofimmigrationissuesfortheCriminalDivisionandpersonallyestablishedtheSIOCWorkingGroup.

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

  • 13

    forcorrectinginmatemisbehaviorandaddressingsecurityconcerns.Id.76.1

    TheconfinementpolicywascreatedbytheMDCDefendantsinconsultation2

    withtheFBI.Id.65.3

    ConditionsintheADMAXSHUweresevereandbegantoreceivemedia4

    attentionsoonafterdetentionsbegan.SeeOIGReportat2,5.Detaineeswere:5

    placedintinycellsforover23hoursaday,Compl.5;stripsearchedevery6

    timetheywereremovedfromorreturnedtotheircell[s],...evenwhentheyhad7

    noconceivableopportunitytoobtaincontraband,id.112;providedwith8

    meagerandbarelyediblefood,id.128;deniedsleepbybrightlightsthat9

    wereleftonintheircellsfor24hoursaday,id.119,and,[o]nsomeoccasions,10

    correctionalofficerswalkedbyevery20minutesthroughoutthenight,kicked11

    thedoorstowakeupthedetainees,andyelledhighlydegradingandoffensive12

    comments,id.120;constructivelydeniedrecreationandexposedtothe13

    elements,seeid.12223;deniedaccesstobasichygieneitemsliketoilet14

    paper,soap,towels,toothpaste,[and]eatingutensils,id.130;andprohibited15

    frommovingaroundtheunit,usingthetelephonefreely,usingthecommissary,16

    oraccessingMDChandbooks,whichexplainedhowtofilecomplaintsabout17

    mistreatment,seeid.76,83,129,140.18

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

  • 14

    MDCstaffalsosubjectedthe9/11detaineestofrequentphysicalandverbal1

    abuse.Theabuseincludedslammingthe9/11detaineesintowalls;bendingor2

    twistingtheirarms,hands,wrists,andfingers;liftingthemoffthegroundby3

    theirarms;pullingontheirarmsandhandcuffs;steppingontheirlegrestraints;4

    restrainingthemwithhandcuffsand/orshacklesevenwhileintheircells;and5

    handlingtheminotherroughandinappropriateways.Seeid.105;seealso6

    SupplementalOIGReportat828.MDCstaffalsoreferredtothe9/11detainees7

    asterrorists,andotheroffensivenames;threaten[ed]themwithviolence;8

    curs[ed]atthem;insult[ed]theirreligion;andma[de]humiliatingsexual9

    commentsduringstripsearches.Compl.109.Specifically,Plaintiffsand10

    putativeclassmembersattheMDCwerereferredtobystaffascamel[s],11

    fuckingMuslims,andArabicasshole[s],id.110,147,218.12

    TheMDCPlaintiffsdidnotreceivecopiesoftheKoranforweeksor13

    monthsafterrequestingthem,andonePlaintiffneverreceivedacopy,pursuant14

    toawrittenMDCpolicy...thatprohibitedthe9/11detaineesfromkeeping15

    anything,includingaKoran,intheircell[s].Id.132.TheMDCPlaintiffswere16

    alsodeniedtheHalalfoodrequiredbytheirMuslimfaith.Id.133.And17

    MDCstafffrequentlyinterruptedPlaintiffsandclassmembersprayers,18

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

  • 15

    includingbybangingoncelldoors,yellingderogatorycomments,and1

    mockingthedetaineeswhiletheyprayed.Id.136.2

    ThenamedMDCPlaintiffsindividualexperiencesseveralofwhichare3

    highlightedbelowaddfurthertexturetotheircollectiveallegationsconcerning4

    thearrestandconfinementofthe9/11detainees.5

    A. AnserMehmood6

    Mehmood,acitizenofPakistananddevoutMuslim,enteredtheUnited7

    Statesonabusinessvisain1989withhiswife,Uzma,andtheirthreechildren.8

    Afterhisvisaexpired,Mehmoodremainedinthecountryandstartedatrucking9

    businessthatprovidedenoughearningstopurchaseahomeinNewJerseyand10

    tosendfundstohisfamilyinPakistan.In2000,whilelivinginNewJersey,he11

    andUzmahadtheirfourthchild.InMay2001,UzmasbrotheraUnitedStates12

    citizensubmittedanimmigrationpetitionfortheentirefamily.13

    OnthemorningofOctober3,2001,MehmoodwasasleepwithUzmaand14

    theironeyearoldsonwhenFBIandINSagentsknockedonhisdoor.The15

    agentssearchedMehmoodshomeandaskedwhetherhewasinvolvedwitha16

    jihad.Id.157.Mehmoodadmittedthathehadoverstayedhisvisa.TheFBI17

    informedMehmoodthattheywerenotinterestedinhim;theyhadcometoarrest18

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

  • 16

    hiswifeUzma,whosenametheFBIhadencounteredwheninvestigating1

    PlaintiffAhmerAbbasi,herbrother.MehmoodconvincedtheFBItoarresthim2

    insteadofUzmabecausetheirsonwasstillbreastfeeding.TheAgenttold3

    Mehmoodthattheyhadnochoicebuttoarrestoneoftheparents,butthat4

    Mehmoodfacedaminorimmigrationviolationonly,andhewouldbeouton5

    bailwithindays.Id.159.6

    UponhisarrivalattheMDC,Mehmoodwasdraggedfromthevanby7

    severallargecorrectionalofficers,whothrewhimintoseveralwallsonhisway8

    intothefacility.Id.162.Hislefthandwasbrokenduringthisincidentand9

    [t]heguardsthreatenedtokillhimifheaskedanyquestions.Id.His10

    experienceintheADMAXSHUtrackedthatofother9/11detainees.For11

    instance,[w]heneverMehmoodwasremovedfromhiscell,hewasplacedin12

    handcuffs,chains,andshackles.FourormoreMDCstaffmemberstypically13

    escortedhimtohisdestination,frequentlyinflictingunnecessarypainalongthe14

    way,forexample,bybanginghimintothewall,dragginghim,carryinghim,and15

    steppingonhisshacklesandpushinghisfaceintothewall.Id.166.Neither16

    theFBInorINSinterviewedMehmoodfollowinghisarrest.Mehmoodwasnot17

    releasedfromtheADMAXSHUuntilFebruary6,2002.18

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

  • 17

    B. AhmedKhalifa1

    Khalifa,whohadcompletedfiveyearstowardamedicaldegreeatthe2

    UniversityofAlexandriainEgypt,cametotheUnitedStatesonastudentvisain3

    July2001.HecametotheFBIsattentionaftertheFBIreceivedatipthatseveral4

    ArabswholivedatKhalifasaddresswererentingapostofficebox,andpossibly5

    sendingoutlargequantitiesofmoney.Id.195.OnSeptember30,2001,FBI,6

    INS,andofficersfromtheNewYorkCityPoliceDepartmentcametothe7

    apartmentKhalifasharedwithseveralEgyptianfriends.Theofficerssearched8

    hiswalletandapparentlybecameveryinterestedinalistofphonenumbersof9

    friendsinEgypt.Id.196.Aftersearchingtheapartment,theagentsasked10

    KhalifaforhispassportandifhehadanythingtodowithSeptember11.Id.11

    197.OneFBIagenttoldKhalifathattheywereonlyinterestedinthreeofhis12

    roommates,butanotheragentsaidtheyalsoneededKhalifa,whomtheyarrested13

    forworkingwithoutauthorization.Id.14

    OnOctober1,2001,afterbrieflystoppingatalocalINSdetentionfacilityto15

    completepaperwork,KhalifaandhisroommatesweretransportedtotheMDC.16

    WhenhearrivedattheMDC,Khalifawasslammedintothewall,pushedand17

    kickedbyMDCofficersandplacedintoawetcell,withamattressonthefloor.18

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

  • 18

    Id.201.[His]wristswerecutandbruisedfromhishandcuffs,andhewas1

    worriedaboutotherdetainees,whomheheardgaspingandmoaningthrough2

    thewallsofhiscell.Id.3

    FBIandINSagentsinterviewedKhalifaonOctober7,2001.Oneofthe4

    agentsapologizedtoKhalifaafternoticingthebruisesonhiswrists.When5

    KhalifastatedthatMDCguardswereabusinghim,theagentsstateditwas6

    becausehewasMuslim.Id.202.Innotesfromtheinterview,theagentsdid7

    notquestionKhalifascredibility,andnotednosuspicionoftiestoterrorismor8

    interestinhiminconnectionwithPENTTBOM.9

    Followingtheinterview,MDCguardsstripsearchedKhalifaandlaughed10

    whentheymadehimbendoverandspreadhisbuttocks.Id.203.Khalifa11

    complainsoftheconditionsassociatedwithdetentionintheADMAXSHU,12

    includingarbitraryandabusivestripsearches,sleepdeprivation,constructive13

    denialofrecreationalactivitiesandhygieneitems,anddeprivationoffoodand14

    medicalattention.15

    ByNovember5,2001,theNewYorkFBIfieldofficeaffirmativelycleared16

    KhalifaofanytiestoterrorismandsenthisnametoFBIHeadquartersforfinal17

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

  • 19

    clearance.KhalifawasnotofficiallycleareduntilDecember19,2001.He1

    remainedconfinedintheADMAXSHUuntilmidJanuary2002.2

    C. PurnaRajBajracharya3

    BajracharyaisneitherMuslimnorArab.HeisaBuddhistandnativeof4

    NepalwhoenteredtheUnitedStatesonathreemonthbusinessvisain1996.5

    Afteroverstayinghisvisa,BajracharyaremainedinQueens,NewYork,forfive6

    years,workingvariousoddjobstosendmoneyhometohiswifeandsonsin7

    Nepal.Havingplannedtoreturnhomeinthefallorwinterof2001,Bajracharya8

    usedavideocameratocapturethestreetshehadcometoknowinNewYork.9

    HecametotheFBIsattentiononOctober25,2001,whenaQueensCounty10

    DistrictAttorneysOfficeemployeeobservedan[A]rabmalevideotaping11

    outsideaQueens[]officebuildingthatcontainedtheQueensCountyDistrict12

    Attorney[s]OfficeandaNewYorkFBIoffice.Id.230.Whenapproachedby13

    investigatorsfromtheDistrictAttorneysOffice,Bajracharyatriedtoexplainthat14

    hewasatourist.Theinvestigatorstookhiminsidethebuildingandinterrogated15

    himforfivehours.FBIandINSagentsarrivedatsomepointduringthe16

    interrogation.Bajracharyasubsequentlytooktheagentstohisapartment;17

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

  • 20

    providedthemwithhisidentificationdocuments,whichestablishedhiscountry1

    oforigin;andadmittedtooverstayinghisvisa.2

    Apparentlyduetothevideotaping,Bajracharyawasdesignatedasbeing3

    ofspecialinteresttotheFBIandonOctober27,2001,hewastransportedtothe4

    MDC.Id.23334.OnOctober30,2001,theFBIagentassignedto5

    Bajracharyascase,alongwithotherlawenforcementpersonnel,interviewedhim6

    withtheaidofaninterpreter.Duringtheinterview,Bajracharyawasasked7

    whetherhewasMuslimorknewanyMuslims.Id.235.Bajracharya8

    explainedthathewasnotMuslimandknewnoMuslims.TheFBIagentsnotes9

    fromtheinterviewdonotquestionBajracharyascredibilityorexpressany10

    suspicionoftiestoterrorism.Twodayslater,thesameagentaffirmatively11

    clearedBajracharyaofanylinktoterrorism.ByNovember5,2001,theNew12

    YorkFBIfieldofficecompleteditsinvestigationandforwardedBajracharyas13

    casetoFBIHeadquartersforfinalclearance.DocumentsatFBIHeadquarters14

    notethattheFBIhadnointerestinBajracharyabymidNovember2001.15

    Nonetheless,hewasnotreleasedfromtheADMAXSHUuntilJanuary13,2002.16

    TheFBIagentassignedtoBajracharyascasedidnotunderstandwhy17

    BajracharyaremainedintheADMAXSHUthroughoutthisperiod;theagent18

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

  • 21

    eventuallycalledtheLegalAidSocietyandadvisedanattorneythatBajracharya1

    neededlegalrepresentation.2

    Bajracharya,whois53andweighedabout130poundsatthetimeofhis3

    arrest,complainsofthesameconditionscommontotheotherMDCPlaintiffs.4

    Forinstance,hecouldnotsleepduetothelightinhiscell,andwhenhewas5

    removedfromhiscell,hewouldbeplacedinhandcuffs,chains,andshackles6

    andescortedbyfourormoreMDCstaffmembers.Bajracharyabecameso7

    traumatizedbyhisexperienceintheADMAXSHUthatheweptconstantly.8

    WhenanattorneyrequestedthattheMDCtransferBajracharyatogeneral9

    population,anMDCdoctorrespondedthatBajracharyawascryingtoomuch,10

    andwouldcauseariot.Id.241.11

    IV. TheNewYorkListandtheOfInterestDesignation12

    AsoriginallyarticulatedbyAshcroft,following9/11,theDOJsoughtto13

    preventfutureterrorismbyarrestinganddetainingthosepeoplewhohave14

    beenidentifiedaspersonswhoparticipatein,orlendsupportto,terrorist15

    activities.OIGReportat12(internalquotationmarksomitted).Tothatend,16

    MichaelPearson,whowasthenINSExecutiveAssociateCommissionerforField17

    Operations,issuedaseriesofOperationalOrders,whichaddressedthe18

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

  • 22

    responsibilitiesofINSagentsoperatingwiththeFBItoinvestigateleadson1

    illegalaliens.ASeptember22,2001orderinstructedagentstoexercisesound2

    judgmentandtolimitarreststothosealiensinwhomtheFBIhadaninterest3

    anddiscouragedarrestincasesthatwereclearlyofnointerestinfurtheringthe4

    investigationoftheterroristattacksofSeptember11th.Id.at45(internal5

    quotationmarksomitted).TheofinterestdesignationbyanFBIagenthad6

    significantimplicationsforadetainee.Ofinterestdetaineeswereplacedon7

    theINSList,subjecttotheholduntilclearedpolicy,andrequiredFBIclearance8

    ofanyconnectiontoterrorismbeforetheycouldbereleasedorremovedfromthe9

    UnitedStates.DetaineeswhowerenotdesignatedofinteresttotheFBIs10

    PENTTBOMinvestigationwerenotplacedontheINSList,didnotrequire11

    clearancebytheFBI,andcouldbeprocessedaccordingtonormalINS12

    procedures.Id.at40.13

    Thearrestanddetentionmandatewasnotuniformlyimplemented14

    throughoutthecountry.Specifically,theNewYorkFBIinvestigatedall15

    PENTTBOMleadswithoutvettingtheinitialtipanddesignatedasofinterest16

    anyonepickeduponaPENTTBOMlead...regardlessofthestrengthofthe17

    evidenceortheoriginofthelead.Id.at41;seealsoCompl.4345.For18

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

  • 23

    instance,daysafter9/11,NewYorkCitypolicestoppedthreeMiddleEastern1

    meninManhattanonatrafficviolationandfoundplanstoapublicschoolinthe2

    car.Thenextday,theiremployerconfirmedthatthemenhadtheplansbecause3

    theywereperformingconstructionworkontheschool.Nonetheless,themen4

    werearrestedanddetained.SeeOIGReportat42.Inanotherinstance,aMiddle5

    EasternmanwasarrestedforillegallycrossingintotheUnitedStatesfrom6

    Canadaoveraweekbefore9/11.Aftertheattacks,themanwasplacedonNew7

    Yorksspecialinterestlisteventhoughadocumentinhisfile,datedSeptember8

    26,2001,statedthatFBINewYorkhadnoknowledgeofthebasisforhis9

    detention.Id.at64(internalquotationmarksomitted).10

    Inmanycases,theNewYorkFBIdidnotevenattempttodetermine11

    whetherthealienwaslinkedtoterrorism,seeid.at14,16,4142,47,anditnever12

    labeledadetaineenointerestuntilaftertheclearanceprocesswascomplete,id.13

    at18(emphasisadded).Thus,aliensencounteredandarrestedpursuanttoa14

    PENTTBOMleadinNewYorkweredesignatedofinterest(orspecialinterest)15

    andhelduntilthelocalfieldofficeconfirmedtheyhadnotiestoterrorism.Id.at16

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

  • 24

    14;seealsoid.at53.11TheresultwasthattheMDCPlaintiffsandotherssimilarly1

    situatedinNewYorkwereheldattheMDCADMAXSHUasiftheymetthe2

    nationalofinterestdesignation.Thesepracticesspecificallytheabsolutelack3

    oftriageappeartohavebeenuniquetoNewYork.Seeid.at47,56.124

    AtsomepointinOctober2001,INSrepresentativestotheSIOCWorking5

    GrouplearnedthattheNewYorkFBIwasmaintainingaseparatelist(theNew6

    YorkList)ofdetaineeswhohadnotbeenincludedinthenationalINSList.One7

    explanationformaintainingaseparateNewYorkListwasthattheNewYorkFBI8

    couldnotdetermineifthedetaineeshadanyconnectionwithterroristactivity.9

    Id.at54.10

    AfterINSHeadquarterslearnedoftheseparateNewYorkList,small11

    groupsofseniorofficialsfromtheDAGsOffice,theFBI,andtheINSconvened12

    onatleasttwooccasionsinOctoberandNovember2001tosuggesthowtodeal13

    withthetwoseparatelistsofdetainees.IndiscussinghowtoaddresstheNew14

    11TheOIGReportindicatesthat491ofthe762detaineeswerearrestedinNewYork.OIGReportat2122.However,theOIGReportdoesnotidentifyhowmanyNewYorkarrestsweretheresultoftheNewYorkFBIsefforts.12TheOIGReportpositsthattheNewYorkresponsedifferedfromtherestofthenation,atleastinpart,asaresultoftheNewYorkFBIandU.S.AttorneysOfficeslongtraditionofindependencefromtheirheadquartersinWashington,D.C.SeeOIGReportat54.

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

  • 25

    YorkList,officialsattheINS,FBI,and[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,among1

    otherthings,whetherthealiens[ontheNewYorkList]hadanynexusto2

    terrorism.Id.at53.Nonetheless,thislistwasmergedwiththeINSListdueto3

    theconcernthatabsentfurtherinvestigation,theFBIcouldunwittinglypermita4

    dangerousindividualtoleavetheUnitedStates.Id.Thedecisiontomergethe5

    listsensuredthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNewYorkListwouldremain6

    detainedinthechallengedconditionsofconfinementasifthereweresome7

    suspicionthatthoseindividualsweretiedtoterrorism,eventhoughnosuch8

    suspicionexisted.9

    V. TheIssuesonAppeal10

    InaJanuary15,2013MemorandumandOrder,thedistrictcourtgranted11

    inpartanddeniedinpartDefendantsmotionstodismisstheComplaint.The12

    districtcourtdismissedallclaimsagainsttheDOJDefendants.AstotheMDC13

    Defendants,thedistrictcourtdeniedtheirmotionstodismissPlaintiffs14

    substantivedueprocessconditionsofconfinementclaim(Claim1);equal15

    protectionconditionsofconfinementclaim(Claim2);freeexerciseclaim(Claim16

    3);unreasonablestripsearchclaim(Claim6);andconspiracyclaimunder4217

    U.S.C.1985(3)(Claim7).SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat324.TheMDC18

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

  • 26

    Defendantsappealed,andPlaintiffscrossappealedthedismissaloftheclaims1

    againsttheDOJDefendantsbasedonajudgmentthatwasenteredpursuantto2

    Rule54(b)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.133

    DISCUSSION144

    I. PleadingStandard5

    TosatisfyIqbalsplausibilitystandard,Plaintiffsmustplead[]factual6

    contentthatallowsthecourttodrawthereasonableinferencethatthedefendant7

    isliableforthemisconductalleged.556U.S.at678.Althoughplausibilityisnot8

    aprobabilityrequirement,Plaintiffsmustallegefactsthatpermitmorethana9

    sheerpossibilitythatadefendanthasactedunlawfully.Id.(internalquotation10

    marksomitted).Factualallegationsthataremerelyconsistentwithunlawful11

    conductdonotcreateareasonableinferenceofliability.Id.12

    Moreover,[t]hreadbarerecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofaction,13

    supportedbymereconclusorystatements,donotsuffice.Id.Wellpleaded14

    factualallegations,incontrast,shouldbepresumedtrue,andwemustdetermine15

    13Plaintiffshavenotappealedthedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheirinterferencewithcounselclaims(Claims4and5).14WereviewthedistrictcourtsdeterminationofDefendantsRule12(b)(6)motionstodismissdenovo.SeePapelinov.AlbanyColl.ofPharmacyofUnionUniv.,633F.3d81,88(2dCir.2011).

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

  • 27

    whethertheyplausiblygiverisetoanentitlementtorelief.Id.at679.1

    Ultimately,everyplausibilitydeterminationisacontextspecifictaskthat2

    requiresthereviewingcourttodrawonitsjudicialexperienceandcommon3

    sense.Id.4

    WiththeexceptionoftheSection1985conspiracyclaim,allofPlaintiffs5

    claimsallegeconstitutionalviolationsbasedoninjuriesfirstrecognizedbythe6

    SupremeCourtinBivens,403U.S.at388.Duringthecourseofthislitigation,the7

    SupremeCourtmadeitclearinIqbalthatafederaltortfeasorsBivensliability8

    cannotbepremisedonvicariousliability.556U.S.at676.Thus,Plaintiffsmust9

    plausiblypleadthateachDefendant,throughtheofficialsownindividual10

    actions,violatedPlaintiffsconstitutionalrights.Id.Inotherwords,Bivens11

    reliefisavailableonlyagainstfederalofficialswhoarepersonallyliableforthe12

    allegedconstitutionaltort.Id.at67677.Iqbalprecludesrelyingona13

    supervisorsmereknowledgeofasubordinatesmentalstate(i.e.,discriminatory14

    orpunitiveintent)toinferthatthesupervisorsharedthatintent.Id.at677.15

    Knowingthatasubordinateengagedinaroguediscriminatoryorpunitiveactis16

    notenough.Butthatisnottosaythatwherethesupervisorcondonesorratifies17

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

  • 28

    asubordinatesdiscriminatoryorpunitiveactionsthesupervisorisfreeof1

    Bivenssreach.Seeid.at683.2

    II. AvailabilityofaBivensRemedyforPlaintiffsClaims3

    UnliketheMDCDefendants,noneoftheDOJDefendantschallengethe4

    existenceofaBivensremedyintheirbriefstothisCourt.WhiletheDOJ5

    Defendantsdidraisethisissuebelow,andarerepresentedbyablecounselon6

    appeal,theyhavechosentonotofferthatargumentnowasafurtherdefenseof7

    theirvictoryinthedistrictcourt.However,asthereaderwilllaterdiscover,our8

    dissentingcolleaguemakesmuchofthisdefense,raisingitashermainobjection9

    toourresolutionoftheappeal.GiventheMDCDefendantsarguments,aswell10

    asthedissentsdecisiontopresstheissue,legitimatelynotingthatadistrict11

    courtsjudgmentcanbeaffirmedonanygroundsupportedbytherecord,12

    DissentingOp.,postat7n.4(citingLotesCo.v.HonHaiPrecisionIndus.Co.,75313

    F.3d395,413(2dCir.2014)),wethinkitappropriatetoexplainourconclusion14

    thataBivensremedyisavailablefortheMDCPlaintiffspunitiveconditionsof15

    confinementandstripsearchclaimsagainstboththeDOJandtheMDC16

    Defendants.17

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

  • 29

    InBivens,403U.S.at388,theSupremeCourtrecognizedforthefirsttime1

    animpliedprivateactionfordamagesagainstfederalofficersallegedtohave2

    violatedacitizensconstitutionalrights.Corr.Servs.Corp.v.Malesko,534U.S.3

    61,66(2001).ThepurposeofBivensistodeterindividualfederalofficersfrom4

    committingconstitutionalviolations.Id.at70.BecauseaBivensclaimhas5

    judicialparentage,theSupremeCourthaswarnedthattheBivensremedyisan6

    extraordinarythingthatshouldrarelyifeverbeappliedinnewcontexts.Arar7

    v.Ashcroft,585F.3d559,571(2dCir.2009)(enbanc)(internalquotationmarks8

    omitted).Thus,aBivensremedyisnotavailableforallwhoallegeinjuryfroma9

    federalofficersviolationoftheirconstitutionalrights.10

    InArar,weoutlinedatwostepprocessfordeterminingwhetheraBivens11

    remedyisavailable.First,thecourtmustdeterminewhethertheunderlying12

    claimsextendBivensintoanewcontext.Id.at572.If,andonlyif,theanswer13

    tothisfirststepisyes,thecourtmustthenconsider(a)whetherthereisan14

    alternativeremedialschemeavailabletotheplaintiff,and,evenifthereisnot,15

    (b)whetherspecialfactorscounselhesitationincreatingaBivensremedy.Id.16

    (internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted).AsArarnoted,caselaw17

    provideslimitedguidanceregardinghowtodeterminewhetheraclaimpresents18

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

  • 30

    anewcontextforBivenspurposes.Thus,[w]econstrue[d]thewordcontextas1

    itiscommonlyusedinlaw:toreflectapotentiallyrecurringscenariothathas2

    similarlegalandfactualcomponents.Id.3

    Determiningthecontextofaclaimcanbetricky.TheMDCDefendants4

    contendthatthecontextofPlaintiffsclaimsisthenationsresponsetoan5

    unprecedentedterroristattack.ShermanBr.45.TheDOJDefendantsmadea6

    similarargumentbeforethedistrictcourtinanearlierroundofthislitigation.7

    SeeTurkmenI,2006WL1662663,at*30.TheMDCDefendants,andthedissent8

    onbehalfoftheDOJDefendants,contendthatArarsupportsthisview.Butif9

    thatwerethecase,thenwhydidArartakepainstonotethatthecontextof10

    Ararsclaimswasnotthenationscontinuingresponsetoterrorism,buttheacts11

    offederalofficialsincarryingoutArarsextraordinaryrendition?585F.3dat12

    572.Welookedtoboththerightsinjuredandthemechanismoftheinjuryto13

    determinethecontextofArarsclaims.InrejectingtheavailabilityofaBivens14

    remedy,wefocusedonthemechanismofhisinjury:extraordinaryrenditiona15

    distinctphenomenonininternationallawanddeterminedthispresenteda16

    newcontextforBivensbasedclaims.Id.Onlyuponconcludingthat17

    extraordinaryrenditionpresentedanewcontextdidweexaminethepolicy18

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

  • 31

    concernsandcompetingremedialmeasuresavailabletoArar.Inourview,1

    settingthecontextoftheBivensclaimshereasthenationalresponseinthewake2

    of9/11conflatesthetwostepprocessdictatedbythisCourtinArar.Thereasons3

    whyPlaintiffswereheldattheMDCasiftheyweresuspectedofterrorismdo4

    notpresentthecontextoftheirconfinementjustasthereasonforArars5

    extraordinaryrenditiondidnotpresentthecontextofhisclaim.Withoutdoubt,6

    9/11presentedunrivaledchallengesandsevereexigenciesbutthatdoesnot7

    changethecontextofPlaintiffsclaims.[M]ostoftherightsthatthe8

    Plaintiff[s]contend[]wereviolateddonotvarywithsurroundingcircumstances,9

    suchastherightnottobesubjectedtoneedlesslyharshconditionsof10

    confinement,therighttobefreefromtheuseofexcessiveforce,andtherightnot11

    tobesubjectedtoethnicorreligiousdiscrimination.Thestrengthofoursystem12

    ofconstitutionalrightsderivesfromthesteadfastprotectionofthoserightsin13

    bothnormalandunusualtimes.Iqbalv.Hasty(Hasty),490F.3d143,159(2dCir.14

    2007),revdonothergroundssubnom.Iqbal,556U.S.662.15

    Thus,wethinkitplainthattheMDCPlaintiffsconditionsofconfinement16

    claimsaresetinthefollowingcontext:federaldetaineePlaintiffs,housedina17

    federalfacility,allegethatindividualfederalofficerssubjectedthemtopunitive18

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

  • 32

    conditions.Thiscontexttakesaccountofboththerightsinjured(here,1

    substantivedueprocessandequalprotectionrights)15andthemechanismof2

    injury(punitiveconditionswithoutsufficientcause).Theclaimthatindividual3

    officersviolateddetaineesconstitutionalrightsbysubjectingthemtoharsh4

    treatmentwithimpermissibleintentorwithoutsufficientcausestandsfirmly5

    withinafamiliarBivenscontext.BoththeSupremeCourtandthisCircuithave6

    recognizedaBivensremedyforconstitutionalchallengestoconditionsof7

    confinement.InCarlsonv.Green,446U.S.14,1720(1980),theSupremeCourt8

    recognizedanimpliedremedyfortheplaintiffsclaimalleginganEighth9

    Amendmentviolationforprisonermistreatment.Furthermore,inMalesko,in10

    refusingtoextendaBivensremedytoclaimsagainstprivatecorporations11

    housingfederaldetainees,theSupremeCourtobservedindictathat,whileno12

    15TherightsinjuredcomponentofPlaintiffsclaimsfallwithinarecognizedBivenscontext.ThisCircuithaspresumedtheavailabilityofaBivensremedyforsubstantivedueprocessclaimsinseveralcases.SeeArar,585F.3dat598(Sack,J.,dissenting)(citingcases).Inaddition,theSupremeCourthasacknowledgedtheavailabilityofaBivensactiontoredressaviolationoftheequalprotectioncomponentoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendment.Iqbal,556U.S.at675(citingDavisv.Passman,442U.S.228(1979)).AndwhileitistruethattheSupremeCourthassubsequentlydeclinedtoextendDavistootheremploymentdiscriminationclaims,suchasinChappellv.Wallace,462U.S.296,30004(1983),theCourtsanalysiswasfocusedonthespecialnatureoftheemployeremployeerelationshipinthemilitaryor,inotherwords,themechanismofinjury.Here,wherethemechanismofinjuryisalsofamiliar,aBivensremedyisplainlyavailable.

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

  • 33

    claimwasavailableagainsttheprivatecorporation,afederalprisonerwouldhave1

    aremedyagainstfederalofficialsforconstitutionalclaims.534U.S.at72.Ifa2

    federalprisonerinaBOPfacilityallegesaconstitutionaldeprivation,hemay3

    bringaBivensclaimagainsttheoffendingindividualofficer,subjecttothe4

    defenseofqualifiedimmunity.Id.TheCourtwentontorecognizethatthe5

    prisonermaynotbringaBivensclaimagainsttheofficersemployer,theUnited6

    States,ortheBOP.Id.TheMDCPlaintiffsclaimshereplainlyfollowMaleskos7

    guidance:theclaimsareraisedagainsttheindividualofficers,bothattheDOJ8

    andtheMDC,whowereresponsibleforsubjectingthePlaintiffstopunitive9

    conditionsofconfinement.10

    TheSecondCircuithasalsorecognizedtheavailabilityofBivensrelieffor11

    federalprisonershousedinfederalfacilitiesbringingclaimsagainstindividual12

    federalofficers.InThomasv.Ashcroft,470F.3d491,497(2dCir.2006),thisCourt13

    reversedthedistrictcourtsdismissaloftheprisonerplaintiffsBivensclaimfor14

    violationofhisdueprocessrightsagainstsupervisoryprisonofficials.Seealso15

    Tellierv.Fields,280F.3d69,8083(2dCir.2000)(recognizingaBivensremedyfor16

    aclaimofdeprivationofproceduraldueprocessbroughtbyafederalprisoner17

    againstfederalprisonofficials).Furthermore,inHasty,whereweconsidered18

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

  • 34

    claimsnearlyidenticaltothoseatissueinthiscase,wedidnotsomuchashint1

    eitherthataBivensremedywasunavailableorthatitsavailabilitywould2

    constituteanunwarrantedextensionoftheBivensdoctrine.Arar,585F.3dat3

    597(Sack,J.,dissenting)(discussingHasty,490F.3dat17778).4

    OursistercircuitshavealsopermittedBivensclaimsforunconstitutional5

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

    abrogatedonothergroundsbyThaddeusXv.Blatter,175F.3d378(6thCir.1999)(en7

    banc),theSixthCircuitheldthatfederalcourtshavethejurisdictionalauthority8

    toentertainaBivensactionbroughtbyafederalprisoner,allegingviolationsof9

    hisrighttosubstantivedueprocess.TheThirdCircuithasalsopermitteda10

    federalinmatetobringacivilrightsactionagainstprisonofficials.SeeBistrianv.11

    Levi,696F.3d352,37275(3dCir.2012)(assumingavailabilityofaBivensremedy12

    forplaintiffsFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessandotherconstitutional13

    claimschallenginghisconditionsofconfinement).14

    Notwithstandingthepersuasiveprecedentsuggestingtheavailabilityofa15

    BivensremedyfortheMDCPlaintiffsconditionsofconfinementclaims,the16

    MDCDefendants,andourdissentingcolleague,arguethattheMDCPlaintiffs17

    claimspresentanewBivenscontextbecausethePlaintiffsareillegalaliens.But18

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

  • 35

    becausetheMDCPlaintiffsrighttobefreefrompunitiveconditionsof1

    confinementiscoextensivewiththatofacitizen,theirunlawfulpresenceinthe2

    UnitedStatesatthetimeofthechallengedconfinementdoesnotplacetheir3

    standardmistreatmentclaimintoanewcontext.Indeed,theFifthCircuithas4

    recognizedaBivensclaimraisedbyaMexicannationalforviolationsofher5

    FourthandFifthAmendmentrightstobefreefromfalseimprisonmentandthe6

    useofexcessiveforcebylawenforcementpersonnel.SeeMartinezAguerov.7

    Gonzalez,459F.3d618,625(5thCir.2006).TheNinthCircuithasalsorecognized8

    aBivensclaimfordueprocessviolationsthatoccurredduringanillegalalien9

    plaintiffsdetention.SeePapav.UnitedStates,281F.3d1004,101011(9thCir.10

    2002).16Thus,weconcludethataBivensremedyisavailableforthePlaintiffs11

    substantivedueprocessandequalprotectionconditionsofconfinementclaims.12

    OurunderstandingofBivensandthisCourtsdecisioninArardonot13

    howeversuggesttheavailabilityofaBivensremedyforthePlaintiffsfree14

    exerciseclaim.ThatclaimthatDefendantsdeliberatelyinterferedwith15

    16WenotethattheNinthCircuithasdeclinedtoprovideillegalalienswithanimpliedBivensremedyforunlawfuldetentionduringdeportationproceedings.Mirmehdiv.UnitedStates,689F.3d975,98183(9thCir.2012).Ofcourse,thatdecisionisplainlyinappositeherewheretheMDCPlaintiffsdonotchallengethefactthattheyweredetained,butrathertheconditionsinwhichtheyweredetained.

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

  • 36

    Plaintiffsreligiouspracticesby:(1)denyingthemtimelyaccesstocopiesofthe1

    Koran;(2)denyingthemHalalfood;and(3)failingtostopMDCstafffrom2

    interferingwithPlaintiffsprayersdoesnotfallwithinafamiliarBivenscontext.3

    Here,itistherightinjuredPlaintiffsfreeexerciserightandnotthe4

    mechanismofinjurythatplacesPlaintiffsclaimsinanewBivenscontext.5

    Indeed,theSupremeCourthasnotfoundanimplieddamagesremedyunder6

    theFreeExerciseClauseandhasdeclinedtoextendBivenstoaclaimsounding7

    intheFirstAmendment.Iqbal,556U.S.at675(citingBushv.Lucas,462U.S.3678

    (1983)).Accordingly,weagreewiththeMDCDefendantsthatPlaintiffsfree9

    exerciseclaimshouldhavebeendismissed.10

    ButtheMDCPlaintiffsclaimthattheyweresubjectedtounlawfulstrip11

    searchesfallswithinanestablishedBivenscontext:federaldetaineeplaintiffs,12

    housedinafederalfacility,allegethatindividualfederalofficerssubjectedthem13

    tounreasonablesearchesinviolationoftheFourthAmendment.TheMDC14

    DefendantsfailtopersuasivelyexplainwhyrecognizingtheMDCPlaintiffs15

    unlawfulstripsearchclaimwouldextendBivenstoanewcontext.Indeed,the16

    rightviolatedcertainlyfallswithinarecognizedBivenscontext:theFourth17

    AmendmentisatthecoreoftheBivensjurisprudence,asBivensitselfconcerneda18

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

  • 37

    FourthAmendmentclaim.InBivens,theplaintiffbroughtaFourthAmendment1

    claimforthedefendantsuseofunreasonableforcewithoutprobablecause,2

    resultingintheplaintiffsunlawfularrest.403U.S.at38990;seealsoGrohv.3

    Ramirez,540U.S.551,555(2004)(recognizingtheavailabilityofaBivensremedy4

    foraFourthAmendmentclaimofanunreasonablesearch,asaresultofafacially5

    invalidwarrant).ThisCircuithasalsopermittedBivensreliefforFourth6

    Amendmentclaimsinvolvingunreasonablesearches.See,e.g.,Castrov.United7

    States,34F.3d106,107(2dCir.1994).Andthemechanismoftheviolationhere,8

    anunreasonablesearchperformedbyaprisonofficialhasalsobeenrecognized9

    bythisCircuit.Indeed,inArar,westatedthat[i]nthesmallnumberofcontexts10

    inwhichcourtshaveimpliedaBivensremedy,ithasoftenbeeneasytoidentify11

    boththelinebetweenconstitutionalandunconstitutionalconduct,andthe12

    alternativecoursewhichofficersshouldhavepursued....[T]heimmigration13

    officerwhosubjectedanalientomultiplestripsearcheswithoutcauseshould14

    haveleftthealieninhisclothes.585F.3dat580;seealsoHasty,490F.3dat17015

    73(assumingtheexistenceofaBivensremedytochallengestripsearchesunder16

    theFourthAmendment).17

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

  • 38

    Accordingly,weconcludethataBivensremedyisavailableforPlaintiffs1

    conditionsofconfinementclaims,underboththeDueProcessandEqual2

    ProtectionClausesoftheFifthAmendment,andFourthAmendment3

    unreasonableandpunitivestripsearchesclaim.17However,Plaintiffsfree4

    exerciseclaimwouldrequireextendingBivenstoanewcontext,amovewe5

    declinetomakeabsentguidancefromtheSupremeCourt.6

    III. Claim1: SubstantiveDueProcessConditionsofConfinement7

    TheMDCPlaintiffsallegethattheharshconditionsofconfinementinthe8

    MDCviolatedtheirFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessrightsandthatall9

    Defendantsareliableforthisharm.18Plaintiffspresentdistincttheoriesof10

    liabilityastotheDOJandMDCDefendants.11

    A. ApplicableLegalStandard12

    TheFifthAmendmentsDueProcessClauseforbidssubjectingpretrial13

    detaineestopunitiverestrictionsorconditions.SeeBellv.Wolfish(Wolfish),44114

    17BecauseweconcludethatPlaintiffssubstantivedueprocess,equalprotection,andunreasonablepunitivestripsearchesclaimsdonotextendBivenstoanewcontext,weneednotaddresswhetherthereisanalternativeremedialschemeavailabletotheplaintifforwhetherspecialfactorscounselhesitationincreatingaBivensremedy.Arar,585F.3dat572(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted).18TurkmenandSachdeva,thePassaicPlaintiffs,donotbringasubstantivedueprocessconditionsofconfinementclaimorunreasonablestripsearchclaim(Claims1and6).

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

  • 39

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

    withpunitiveintent,(2)personallyengagedinconductthatcausedthe2

    challengedconditionsofconfinement.Seeid.at538;seealsoIqbal,556U.S.at6763

    77.Absentanexpressedintenttopunish,Wolfish,441U.S.at538,wemayonly4

    inferthatDefendantsactedwithpunitiveintentifthechallengedconditions5

    werenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoalif[theywere]arbitraryor6

    purposeless,id.at539.7

    B. TheDOJDefendants8

    WhiletheDOJDefendantsdonotraiseanoBivensclaimdefense,theydo9

    forcefullycontestliabilityherewithpowerfulpostIqbalassertionsthatthe10

    formerAttorneyGeneralandFBIDirectordidnotthemselvesrequireorspecify11

    anyoftheparticularconditionssetforthinthecomplaint.Andtheycannotbe12

    heldliableonwhatamountstoatheoryofrespondeatsuperiorfortheactionsof13

    otherswhomayhaveimposedthoseconditions.Ashcroft&MuellerBr.10.14

    TheycontendthatbecausetheformerAttorneyGeneralsinitialdetentionorder15

    wasconstitutional,havingbeenapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinIqbal,theDOJ1619Thepartieshavenotarguedforadifferentstandardinthisappeal.Accordingly,wedonotaddresswhethertherightsofcivilimmigrationdetaineesshouldbegovernedbyastandardthatisevenmoreprotectivethanthestandardthatappliestopretrialcriminaldetainees.

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

  • 40

    Defendantswereentitledtopresumethatthefaciallyconstitutionalpolicy1

    wouldinturnbeimplementedlawfully....Id.at9.Weagree...toapoint.2

    TheMDCPlaintiffsconcedethattheDOJDefendantsdidnotcreatethe3

    particularconditionsinquestion.SeeTurkmenIII,915F.Supp.2dat326n.4;see4

    alsoOIGReportat19,11213(reportingthat,atleastinitially,BOPofficials5

    determinedtheconditionsunderwhichdetaineeswouldbeheld,without6

    directionfromtheFBIorelsewhere).TheMDCPlaintiffssimilarlyfailtoplead7

    thatAshcroftsinitialarrestanddetentionmandaterequiredsubordinatesto8

    applyexcessivelyrestrictiveconditionstocivildetaineesagainstwhomthe9

    governmentlackedindividualizedsuspicionofterrorism.Giventhemandates10

    facialvalidity,theDOJDefendantshadarighttopresumethatsubordinates11

    wouldcarryitoutinaconstitutionalmanner.SeeAlJundiv.EstateofRockefeller,12

    885F.2d1060,106566(2dCir.1989).Butthatisnottheendofthematter.13

    TheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantswereaware14

    thatillegalalienswerebeingdetainedinpunitiveconditionsofconfinementin15

    NewYorkandfurtherknewthattherewasnosuggestionthatthosedetainees16

    weretiedtoterrorismexceptforthefactthattheywere,orwereperceivedtobe,17

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

  • 41

    AraborMuslim.20TheMDCPlaintiffsfurtherallegethatwhileknowingthese1

    facts,theDOJDefendantswereresponsibleforadecisiontomergetheNewYork2

    ListwiththenationalINSList,whichcontainedthenamesofdetaineeswhose3

    detentionwasdependentnotonlyontheirillegalimmigrantstatusandtheir4

    perceivedAraborMuslimaffiliation,butalsoasuspicionthattheywere5

    connectedtoterroristactivities.ThemergerensuredthattheMDCPlaintiffs6

    wouldcontinuetobeconfinedinpunitiveconditions.Thisissufficienttoplead7

    aFifthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessviolation.21Giventhelackof820Thedissentcountersthat[t]hisisnotapparentintherecord,citingPlaintiffBajracharyasvideotapingofabuildinginQueensasevidenceofthatPlaintiffspossibletietoterrorism.DissentingOp.,postat43n.28.Thedissentmakesnomention,ofcourse,ofPlaintiffKhalifa,whowastoldthattheFBIwasonlyinterestedinhisroommates,butwhowasarrestedandthendetainedintheADMAXSHUanyway,Compl.197;orofPlaintiffMehmood,whowasarrestedanddetainedintheADMAXSHUinplaceofhiswife,inwhomtheFBIhadapparentlyexpressedinterest,butwhowasstillbreastfeedingtheirson,id.159.ThedissentfurtherclaimsthatdetaineeswerenotsenttotheADMAXSHUbasedontheirperceivedraceorreligion,butastheOIGReportstatesbasedonwhethertheyweredesignatedofhighinteresttothePENTTBOMinvestigation.DissentingOp.,postat44n.28(citingOIGReportat18,111).But,asthedissentconcedes,id.,PlaintiffswellpleadedComplaintspecificallycontradictsthispoint:theMDCPlaintiffsweredetainedintheADMAXSHUeventhoughtheyhadnotbeenclassifiedhighinterest,Compl.4.21Weacknowledge,asthedissentpointsout,thattheMDCPlaintiffsdidnotadvancethelistsmergertheorybeforethisCourtorthedistrictcourt.DissentingOp.,postat43n.28.Rather,theystructuredtheComplainttochallengeAshcroftsarrestanddetentionmandateasinitiallyformulatedandgenerallyapplied.InexaminingtheComplaintssufficiency,wehavebeenclearthatthepleadingsareinadequatetochallengethevalidityofthepolicyabinitio,butdostateaclaimwithregardtothemergerdecision,aneventthatPlaintiffsexplicitlyreferenceintheComplaint.See

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

  • 42

    individualizedsuspicion,thedecisiontomergethelistswasnotreasonably1

    relatedtoalegitimategoal.SeeWolfish,441U.S.at539.Theonlyreasonwhy2

    theMDCPlaintiffswereheldasiftheyweresuspectedofterrorismwasbecause3

    theywere,orappearedtobe,AraborMuslim.Weconcludethatthisplausibly4

    pleadspunitiveintent.Id.5

    1. PunitiveConditionsofConfinement6

    ContrarytothedistrictcourtsconclusionthatPlaintiffsfailedtoallege7

    thattheDOJ[D]efendantswereevenawareof[the]conditions,TurkmenIII,9158

    F.Supp.2dat340,theComplaintandtheOIGReporteachcontainallegationsof9

    theDOJDefendantsknowledgeofthechallengedconditions.Plaintiffsallege,10

    interalia,thatMuellerranthe9/11investigationoutofFBIHeadquarters;and11

    thatAshcroft,Mueller[,]andZiglarreceiveddetaileddailyreportsofthearrests12

    anddetentions,Compl.47;seealsoid.6365.13

    TheOIGReportmakesplaintheplausibilityofPlaintiffsallegations.The14

    [DOJ]wasawareoftheBOPsdecisiontohousetheSeptember11detaineesin15

    highsecuritysectionsinvariousBOPfacilities.OIGReportat19.TheDeputy16

    ChiefofStafftoAshcrofttoldtheOIGthatanallegationofmistreatmentwas17Compl.47;Pls.Br.38.SufficiencyanalysisrequiresacarefulparsingoftheComplaintandthatisallthathasoccurredhere.

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

  • 43

    calledtotheAttorneyGeneralsattention.Id.at20.AndBOPDirectorKathy1

    HawkSawyerstatedthatintheweeksfollowing9/11,theDeputyAttorney2

    GeneralsChiefofStaffandthePrincipalAssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneral3

    calledher...withconcernsaboutdetaineesabilitytocommunicatebothwith4

    thoseoutsidethefacilityandwithotherinmates,id.at112,whichshesaid5

    confirmedforherthatthedecisiontohousedetaineesintherestrictive6

    conditionsoftheADMAXSHUwasappropriate,id.at112113.Thissupports7

    thereasonableinferencethatnotonlywasAshcroftsofficeawareofsomeofthe8

    conditionsimposed,butaffirmativelysupportedthem.Seealsoid.at113(DOJ9

    officialstoldSawyertotake[BOP]policiestotheirlegallimit).22Furthermore,10

    theOIGReportalsomakesclearthatconditionsintheADMAXSHUbeganto11

    22Thedissentattemptstominimizetheforceofthesecomments,claimingthatcommunicationsaboutaconditionofconfinementthatwasliftedbeforethemergerdecisioncannotsupportaninferenceastowhattheDOJDefendantsknewabouttheconditionsintheADMAXSHU.DissentingOp.,postat5657.Simplyput,wedisagree.Thefactremainsthataconditionofconfinement,lesssevereandabusivethantheconditionsatissuehere,garneredtheattentionofseniorofficials;itstandstoreasonthatconditionsthatkeptdetaineesintheircellsfortwentythreehoursaday,deniedthemsleepbybrightlights,andinvolvedexcessivestripsearchesandphysicalabuse,wouldhavecometotheDOJDefendantsattention.

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

  • 44

    receivemediaattentionsoonafterdetentionsbegan,seeid.at2,5;23thus,itseems1

    implausiblethatthepublicsconcernsdidnotreachtheDOJDefendantsdesks.2

    Ofcourse,wecannotsayforcertainthatdailyreportsgiventoAshcroft3

    andMuellerdetailedtheconditionsattheADMAXSHUorthatthedaily4

    meetingsoftheSIOCWorkingGroup(containingrepresentativesfromeachof5

    theDOJDefendantsoffices)discussedthoseconditions.Butonreviewofa6

    motiontodismiss,Plaintiffsneednotprovetheirallegations;theymustplausibly7

    pleadthem.Ataminimum,asteadystreamofinformationregardingthe8

    challengedconditionsflowedbetweentheBOPandseniorDOJofficials.Given9

    theMDCPlaintiffsallegations,themediacoverageofconditionsattheMDC,10

    andtheDOJDefendantsannouncedcentralrolesinPENTTBOM,itseemstous11

    plausiblethatinformationconcerningconditionsattheMDC,whichheldeighty12

    fourofthe9/11detainees,reachedtheDOJDefendants.2413

    23See,e.g.,NeilA.Lewis,ANationChallenged:TheDetainees;DetentionsAfterAttacksPass1,000,U.S.Says,N.Y.TIMES,Oct.30,2001,availableathttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/us/anationchallengedthedetaineesdetentionsafterattackspass1000ussays.html(citingcommonnewsreportsofabuseinvolv[ing]mistreatmentofprisonersofMiddleEasternbackgroundatjails).24Furthermore,theOIGreportswereissuedpursuanttotheOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralsresponsibilitiesundertheUSAPATRIOTAct,whichwasenactedonOctober26,2001.SeeOIGReportat3n.6.ThePATRIOTAct,Section1001,reads:TheInspectorGeneraloftheDepartmentofJusticeshalldesignateoneofficialwhoshall(1)reviewinformationandreceivecomplaintsallegingabusesofcivilrightsandcivil

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

  • 45

    2. LackofIndividualizedSuspicion1

    TheMDCPlaintiffsalsoplausiblypleadthattheDOJDefendantswere2

    awarethattheFBIhadnotdevelopedanyconnectionbetweensomeofthe3

    detaineesandterroristactivities.TheComplaintandOIGReportbothmake4

    clearthattheNewYorkFBIarrestedalloutofstatusaliensencountered5

    evencoincidentallyinthecourseofinvestigatingaPENTTBOMlead.OIG6

    Reportat4142,6970.Thesearresteesweredeemedofinterestforpurposes7

    oftheholduntilclearedpolicy,regardlessofthestrengthoftheevidenceorthe8

    originofthelead.Id.at41.Thosedeemedofhighinterestweresenttothe9

    MDCsADMAXSHU,id.at111,buttherewaslittleconsistencyorprecisionto10

    theprocessthatresultedindetaineesbeinglabeledhighinterest,id.at158.2511

    libertiesbyemployeesandofficialsoftheDepartmentofJustice.PATRIOTAct,Pub.L.No.10756,1001,115Stat.272(2001).OnOctober30,2001,theOIGreviewedanewspaperarticleinwhichaSeptember11detaineeallegedhewasphysicallyabusedwhenhearrivedattheMDConOctober4,2001.Basedontheallegationsinthearticle,theOIGsInvestigationsDivisioninitiatedaninvestigationintothematter.OIGReportat144.ItseemstousmostplausiblethatiftheOIGwhoisundertheauthority,direction,andcontroloftheAttorneyGeneralwithrespecttoauditsorinvestigations,5U.S.C.App.38E(a)(1)wasawareofthechallengedconditionsattheMDC,theDOJDefendantswereaswell.25EvensomedetaineeswhowerenotlabeledhighinterestwerenonethelesssenttotheMDCsADMAXSHU.Forexample,Abbasi,Bajracharya,Mehmood,andKhalifa[]wereplacedintheADMAXSHUeventhoughtheyhadnotbeenclassifiedhighinterestanddespitetheabsenceofanyinformationindicatingtheyweredangerousorinvolvedinterrorism,oranyotherlegitimatereasonforsuchtreatment.Compl.4.

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

  • 46

    EveniftheDOJDefendantswerenotinitiallyawareofthispractice,the1

    ComplaintandOIGreportssupportthereasonableinferencethatAshcroftand2

    Muellerlearnedofitwithinweeksof9/11.TheComplaintclearlyallegesthatthe3

    DOJDefendantsagreedthatindividualsforwhomtheFBIcouldonlyarticulate4

    animmigrationlawviolationasareasonfordetentionandforwhomtheFBI5

    hadnotdevelopedanyreliabletietoterrorismwouldcontinuetobetreatedas6

    iftheFBIhadreasontobelievethedetaineeshadtiestoterroristactivity.Compl.7

    67.PlaintiffspointtothedetaileddailyreportsthattheDOJDefendants8

    receivedregardingarrestsanddetentionsandallegethattheDOJDefendants9

    wereawarethattheFBIhadnoinformationtyingPlaintiffsandclassmembers10

    toterrorismpriortotreatingthemasofinteresttothePENTTBOM11

    investigation.Id.47.Indeed,theyclaimthatAshcroft,inparticular,insisted12

    onregular,detailedreportingonarrests;theyallegethathereceivedadaily13

    AttorneyGeneralsReportonpersonsarrested.Id.63.Theyfurtherallege14

    thatitwasZiglarwhowasultimatelyresponsibleforprovidingmuchofthis15

    informationwhichhegleanedfromhistwicedailybriefingswithhisstaff16

    regardingthe9/11detentionstoAshcroft,indicatingthathetoowasawareof17

    thelackofindividualizedsuspicion.Id.64.18

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

  • 47

    Onceagain,theOIGreportsalsosupporttheMDCPlaintiffsallegation1

    thattheDOJDefendantsbecameawareofthelackofindividualizedsuspicion2

    forsomedetaineesheldinthechallengedconditionsofconfinement.TheOIG3

    Reportstatesthat[a]varietyofINS,FBI,and[DOJ]officialswhoworkedon4

    the[]September11detaineecasestoldtheOIGthatitsoonbecameevidentthat5

    manyofthepeoplearrestedduringthePENTTBOMinvestigationmightnot6

    haveanexustoterrorism.OIGReportat45.OtherDOJofficialsalsostated7

    thatitsoonbecameclearthatonlysomeofthedetaineeswereofgenuine8

    investigativeinterestasopposedtoaliensidentifiedbytheFBIasofinterest9

    forwhomtheFBIhadnosuspicionofaconnectiontotheattacksorterrorismin10

    general.Id.at47.11

    TheOIGReportsupportsthereasonableinferencethatthisinformation,12

    knownbyotherDOJofficials,cametotheattentionoftheDOJDefendants.In13

    particular,theOIGReportspecifiesthatAshcroftandMuellerwereinvolvedina14

    continuousmeetingforthefirstfewmonthsafter9/11,atwhichtheissueof15

    holdingaliensuntiltheywereclearedwasdiscussed.Id.at3940.16

    Furthermore,theOIGReportmakesclearthattheSIOCWorkingGroup,17

    containingrepresentativesfromtheofficesofeachoftheDOJDefendants,was18

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

  • 48

    awareofthelackofevidencetyingdetaineestoterrorism.Id.at5357.Aswe1

    havealreadynoted,theOIGReportdetailshowatsomepointinOctober2001,2

    theSIOCWorkingGrouplearnedabouttheNewYorkListandthatofficialsat3

    theINS,FBI,and[DOJ]raisedconcernsabout,amongotherthings,whetherthe4

    alienshadanynexustoterrorism.Id.at53.Clearlythiscreatedamajor5

    problemfortheDOJ.TheexistenceoftheNewYorkListsuddenlypresentedthe6

    possibilityofmorethandoublingthenumberofdetaineessubjecttothehold7

    untilclearedpolicy.26ItseemsquiteplausiblethatDOJofficialswouldconfer8

    withtheAttorneyGeneralandtheDirectoroftheFBI(itwas,afterall,hisagents9

    whowerearrestingoutofstatusArabandMuslimaliensandholdingthemasif10

    theywereofinterestwithoutanysuspicionofterroristconnections)aboutthe11

    problemoftheNewYorkListandthehundredsofdetaineespickedupin12

    contraventionofAshcroftsstatedpolicy.Indeed,itseemstousimplausiblethey13

    didnot.Finally,theOIGReportonceagainmakesclearthatmediareports14

    regardingallegationsofmistreatmentofdetaineesallegedthatdetainees15

    26InOctoberandNovemberof2001,theNewYorkListcontainedapproximately300detaineeswhiletheINSListfortherestofthenationcontainedonly200detainees.OIGReportat54.

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

  • 49

    remainedindetentioneventhoughtheyhadnoinvolvementinterrorism.Id.at1

    2,5.2

    3. TheDecisiontoMergetheLists3

    Plaintiffsplausiblypleadthat,despitetheDOJDefendantsknowledgeof4

    theconditionsattheADMAXSHUandthelackofanyformofverifiedsuspicion5

    foralargenumberofthosedetaineesontheNewYorkList,Ashcroftapproved,6

    oratleastendorsed,adecisiontomergetheNewYorkList.TheMDCPlaintiffs7

    contendthathedidsonotwithstandingvocaloppositionfromvariousinternal8

    sources.TheComplaintclearlyallegesthat[a]gainstsignificantinternal9

    criticismfromINSagentsandotherfederalemployeesinvolvedinthesweeps,10

    Ashcroftorderedthat,despiteacompletelackofanyinformationorastatement11

    ofFBIinterest,allsuchPlaintiffsandclassmembers[ontheNewYorkList]be12

    detaineduntilclearedandotherwisetreatedasofinterest.Compl.47.By13

    takingthisaction,AshcroftensuredthatsomeoftheindividualsontheNew14

    YorkListwouldbeplacedin,orremaindetainedin,thechallengedconditionsof15

    confinement.16

    Ourdissentingcolleaguelevelsaconcernastotheimportofthemergerof17

    thelistsandcountersthatnothingintheOIGreportsconfirmsAshcrofts18

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

  • 50

    personalknowledgeofthecorrelationbetweenthemergerofthelistsandthe1

    lackofindividualizedsuspicionastotheMDCPlaintiffs.Thedissentcontends2

    that,becausePlaintiffsallegationsarenotbasedonpersonalknowledge,thereis3

    nofactualbasisintherecordforthem.DissentingOp.,postat45.Trueenough4

    thatAshcroftdidnotacknowledgethathewasawareofthemergerofthelists5

    anditsimplicationfortheMDCPlaintiffs,nordidhetakeresponsibilityforit.6

    ButthenagainareviewoftheOIGReportgivesnoindicationthatanybody7

    askedhim.8

    TheabsenceofaninquirytotheformerAttorneyGeneralisnotacriticism9

    oftheOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralsmethods,butasimplerecognitionofa10

    factthatpointsoutakeydifferencebetweenourviewoftheOIGreportsand11

    thatofthedissent.Forus,theOIGreportsprovidecontextfortheallegationsof12

    theComplaint.Seesupranote6.However,itwouldbeamistaketothinkofthe13

    OIGreportsasarepositoryofallrelevantfactsofthattroubledtime;butthatis14

    exactlywhatthedissentseemsinclinedtodo.Thedissentmeasuresplausibility15

    bytheabsenceorpresenceoffactfindingsintheOIGreports.Thus,forthe16

    dissent,thefactthattheAttorneyGeneralmaynothavebeenquestionedis17

    confirmationthatheknewnothing.Thereportsmakenosuchassertion.18

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

  • 51

    ItmaybethatfollowingdiscoveryitwillbeclearthatAshcroftwasnot1

    responsibleforthemergerdecision(norwasMuellerorZiglar),butthatisnot2

    thequestionatthepleadingstage.ThequestioniswhethertheMDCPlaintiffs3

    plausiblypleadthatAshcroftwasresponsible.Giventheimportanceofthe4

    mergeranditsimplicationsforhowhislawfuloriginalorderwasbeingcarried5

    out,wethinktheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblyallegethathewas.6

    Indeed,theOIGReportsupportstheMDCPlaintiffsallegationthat7

    Ashcroftwasresponsibleforthemergerdecision.AnincidentatoneoftheNew8

    YorkListmeetingsprovidesadditionalcontextthatsupportsthatallegation.At9

    theNovember2,2001meeting,thegroupdiscussedthenecessityofCIAchecks,10

    oftenaprerequisitetoa9/11detaineesreleasefromdetention.OIGReportat55.11

    Inresponse,StuartLevey,theAssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneralresponsiblefor12

    oversightofimmigrationissues,statedthathehadtocheckbefore13

    communicatingadecisiononwhetheranydetaineescouldbereleasedwithout14

    theCIAcheck.Id.at56.Thisresponsecouldreasonablyindicate(a)alackof15

    authoritytorespondtothequestion,or(b)thatLeveywantedtoconsiderother16

    viewsbeforemakingthedecision.Becauseeitherisplausible,itisirrelevantthat17

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

  • 52

    onlyinference(a)supportstheconclusionthatLeveycouldnotanswerthe1

    questiononhisownandhadtotakeittomoreseniorofficials.272

    Furthermore,inlateNovember2001,whentheINSChiefofStaff3

    approachedLeveyabouttheCIAcheckpolicy,Leveysaidthathedidnotfeel4

    comfortablemakingthedecisionabout[the]requesttochangetheCIAcheck5

    policywithoutadditionalinput.Id.at62.ItseemstousthatifLeveywasnot6

    comfortablechangingtheCIAcheckpolicywithoutinputfrommoresenior7

    officials,hecertainlywouldnothavebeencomfortablemakingthedecisionon8

    hisowntodoublethenumberofdetaineessubjecttothatpolicyinthefirst9

    instance.2810

    27TheOIGReportstatesthatLeveyspecificallyconsultedDavidLaufman,theDeputyAttorneyGeneralsChiefofStaff.OIGReportat62.ThedissenttakesthisasdefinitiveproofthatAshcroftwasnotconsultedonthis,orthemerger,decision.DissentingOp.,postat4749.ThedissentmischaracterizesourreferencetotheCIAchecksdecision.WedonotcontendthatLeveyconsultedAshcroftaboutthatdecision,nordoweneedto.Inourview,thefactthatLeveyspoketoLaufmanaboutthatdecisionisnottheendofthematter;indeed,theonlyrelevanceoftheCIAchecksdecision,period,isthatLeveywasnotcapableofmakingitonhisown,suggestingthathealsowouldnotbeabletomakethelistmergerdecisiononhisown.28Indeed,ZiglartoldtheOIGthathecontactedAshcroftsofficeonNovember7,2001,todiscussconcernsabouttheprocessofclearingnamesfromtheINSCustodyList,especiallytheimpactthatmergingthelistswouldhaveonthatprocessandsaidthatbasedontheseandothercontactswithseniorDepartmentofficials,hebelievedtheDepartmentwasfullyawareoftheINSsconcerns.OIGReportat6667.ThisalsosuggeststhatLeveyhadcommunicatedthoseconcernstoAshcroft,whononethelessmadethedecisiontomergethelists.

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

  • 53

    ThedissentarguesthattheOIGReportforeclosestheplausibilityofthe1

    allegationthatLeveybroughtthelistmergerdecisiontoAshcroftbecause2

    Leveymadethelistsmergerdecision[a]ttheconclusionofthe[November2]3

    meetingatwhichthesubjectwasfirstraisedtohim.DissentingOp.,postat494

    (quotingOIGReportat56).ButtheOIGReportdoesnotindicatethatthemerger5

    issuewasfirstraisedtoLeveyattheNovember2meeting.Rather,theOIG6

    ReportmakesclearthattheissueoftheNewYorkListwasdiscoveredin7

    October2001,29andthatthedecisiontomergethelistswascommunicatedatthe8

    November2meeting.Thus,surelyitisplausiblethatLeveyconsultedwithmore9

    seniorofficials,includingAshcroft,priortothatmeeting.30Ofcourse,discovery10

    mayshowthatLeveywassolelyresponsibleforthedecision.But,again,the11

    29WhilethedissentsobservationthatLeveydidnotattendtheOctober22,2001meetingduringwhichtheproblemspresentedbytheNewYorkListwerediscussedisaccurate,itisalsoirrelevant.SeeDissentingOp.,postat4950(quotingOIGReportat55).WedonotcontendthatLeveylearnedabouttheNewYorkListattheOctober22meeting,butsimplythathelearnedaboutitbeforetheNovember2meeting,givinghimtimetoconsultwithmoreseniorofficials,includingAshcroft,beforecommunicatingadecisionatthatNovembermeeting.Indeed,onewouldthinkthatLeveywouldnotattendtheNovember2meetingwithoutknowingitsagenda.30ThedissentchallengesthesufficiencyofPlaintiffsallegationsandourreadingofthemaswhollyspeculative.DissentingOp.,postat48.Ofcourse,PlaintiffshavenowayofknowingwhatLeveyandAshcroftdiscussed;nordowe.Iqbaldoesnotrequireasmuch,butrathersufficientfactualmatter,acceptedastruetoallowthecourttodrawthereasonableinferencethatAshcroftwasultimatelyresponsibleforthedecision.556U.S.at678.WebelievethatPlaintiffshavemetthisburden.

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

  • 54

    questioniswhetherPlaintiffsallegationssupporttheinferencethatthedecision1

    wasAshcrofts;theydo.2

    TheMDCPlaintiffsallegationsagainstMuellerandZiglararealso3

    sufficient.TheComplaintalleges,interalia,thatAshcroftmadethedecisionto4

    mergethelistsinspiteofthelackofindividualizedsuspicionlinkingtheMDC5

    PlaintiffstoterrorismandthatMuellerandZiglarwerefullyinformedofthis6

    decision,andcompliedwithit.Compl.47;seealsoid.5557,67.Mueller7

    andZiglararenotexculpatedfromthisclaimmerelybecausePlaintiffsallege8

    thattheycompliedwith,asopposedtoordered,thelistmerger.Plaintiffs9

    plausiblypleadthatbothwereawarethattheseparatelistcontaineddetainees10

    forwhomtheFBIhadassertednointerestandthatsubjectingthemtothe11

    challengedconditionswouldbefaciallyunreasonable.Evenifanofficialisnot12

    thesourceofachallengedpolicy,thatofficialcanbeheldpersonallyliablefor13

    constitutionalviolationsstemmingfromtheexecutionofhissuperiorsordersif14

    thoseordersarefaciallyinvalidorclearlyillegal.See,e.g.,Varronev.Bilotti,12315

    F.3d75,81(2dCir.1997)(grantingdefendantsqualifiedimmunitywherethere16

    wasnoclaimthattheorderwasfaciallyinvalidorobviouslyillegal).Inthis17

    instance,PlaintiffsplausiblyallegethatAshcroftsdecisionwasfaciallyinvalid;it18

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

  • 55

    wouldbeunreasonableforMuellerandZiglartoconcludethatholdingordinary1

    civildetaineesunderthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailablewas2

    lawful.3

    4. PunitiveIntent4

    TheMDCPlaintiffsmustshownotonlythattheDOJDefendantsknewof5

    andapprovedcontinueduseoftheADMAXSHU,butalsothattheydidsowith6

    punitiveintentthattheyendorsedtheuseofthoseconditionswithanintentto7

    punishtheMDCPlaintiffs.Federalcourtshavelongrecognizedthatpunitive8

    intentisnotoftenadmitted.TheSupremeCourthasnotedthatitcanbeinferred9

    iftheconditionsofconfinementarenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal.10

    Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Iftheconditionsunderwhichoneisheldhaveno11

    reasonableconnectiontoalegitimategoalofthestate,thenonelogical12

    assumptionisthattheyareimposedfornootherpurposethantopunish.Seeid.13

    TheDOJDefendantsarguethateveniftheyknewoftheplightoftheMDC14

    Plaintiffs,thedecisiontocontinuetheirconfinementattheMDCunder15

    exceptionallyharshconditionswasmotivatedbynationalsecurityconcernsa16

    legitimateworryduringthedaysfollowingthe9/11attacksandnotsome17

    animusdirectedattheMDCPlaintiffs.Theyseemtoimplythatoncenational18

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

  • 56

    securityconcernsbecomeareasonforholdingsomeone,thereisnoneedto1

    showaconnectionbetweenthoseconcernsandthecaptiveotherthanthatthe2

    captivesharescommontraitsoftheterrorist:illegalimmigrantstatusanda3

    perceivedAraborMuslimaffiliation.Indeed,ourdissentingcolleagueasserts4

    thatbecausetheMDCPlaintiffswere,orappearedtobe,membersofthe5

    groupAraborMuslimmalesthatwastargetedforrecruitmentbyalQaeda6

    thattheycouldbeheldintheADMAXSHUwithoutanyreasonablesuspicionof7

    terroristactivity.DissentingOp.,postat6465,7677.Underthisview,theMDC8

    Plaintiffswerenotheldwithpunitiveintentbecausetherewasnowaytoknow9

    thattheywerenotinvolvedinterroristactivities.SimplybeingintheUnited10

    Statesillegallyandbeing,orappearingtobe,AraborMuslimwasenoughto11

    justifydetentioninthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailable.12

    Indeed,Leveyadmittedthatthedecisiontomergethelists,ensuringthatsome13

    ofthe9/11detaineeswouldbesubjecttothechallengedharshconditionsof14

    confinement,wasmadebecausehewantedtoerronthesideofcautionsothata15

    terroristwouldnotbereleasedbymistake.OIGReportat56.16

    Thisargumentrestsontheassumptionthatifanindividualwasanoutof17

    statusAraborMuslim,andsomeonecalledtheFBIforeventhemostabsurd18

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

  • 57

    reason,thatindividualwasconsideredapossiblethreattonationalsecurity.It1

    presumes,inessence,thatalloutofstatusArabsorMuslimswerepotential2

    terroristsuntilprovenotherwise.Itisbuiltonaperceptionofaraceandfaith3

    thathasnobasisinfact.Therewasnolegitimategovernmentalpurposein4

    holdingsomeoneinthemostrestrictiveconditionsofconfinementavailable5

    simplybecausehehappenedtobeor,worseyet,appearedtobeArabor6

    Muslim.7

    Tobeclear,itisnosurprisenorisitconstitutionallyproblematicthat8

    theenforcementofourimmigrationlawsinthewakeof9/11hadadisparate,9

    incidentalimpactonArabMuslims.Iqbal,556U.S.at682.Andwedonot10

    contendthatSupremeCourt,orourown,precedentrequiresindividualized11

    suspiciontosubjectdetaineestogenerallyrestrictiveconditionsofconfinement;12

    restrictionisanincidentofdetention.Rather,wesimplyacknowledgethatifa13

    restrictionorconditionisnotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoalifitis14

    arbitraryorpurposelessacourtpermissiblymayinferthatthepurposeofthe15

    governmentalactionispunishmentthatmaynotconstitutionallybeinflicted16

    upondetaineesquadetainees.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Webelieve,then,that17

    thechallengedconditionskeepingdetaineesintheircellsfortwentythree18

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

  • 58

    hoursaday,constructivelydenyingthemrecreationandexposingthemtothe1

    elements,stripsearchingthemwhenevertheywereremovedfromorreturnedto2

    theircells,denyingthemsleepbybrightlightswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoa3

    legitimategoal,butratherwerepunitiveandunconstitutional.4

    Whilenationalsecurityconcernscouldjustifydetainingthoseindividuals5

    withsuspectedtiestoterrorisminthesechallengedconditionsforthelitanyof6

    reasonsarticulatedbythedissent,seeDissentingOp.,postat6768,those7

    concernsdonotjustifydetainingindividualssolelyonthebasisofan8

    immigrationviolationandtheirperceivedraceorreligioninthosesame9

    conditions.Individualizedsuspicionisrequiredherebecause,absentsome10

    indicationthatthedetaineeshadatietoterrorism,therestrictionsorconditions11

    oftheADMAXSHUwerearbitraryorpurposeless.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.3112

    31Thedissentcitesseveralcasesthatitclaimsdemonstratethatindividualizedsuspicionisnotrequiredforimposingrestrictiveconditionsofconfinement.DissentingOp.,postat6263.Wedonotdisagree:individualizedsuspicionisnotrequiredtoimposeconditionsthatarereasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjective.Wolfish,441U.S.at539.Thus,ineachofthecasescitedbythedissent,ratherthanannouncethatindividualizedsuspicionwasnotrequired,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthattherestrictionsatissueineachofthosecaseswererelatedtothelegitimategoalofprisonsecurityand,therefore,werenotpunitive.Thus,thecasescitedbythedissentdonotchangeourconclusionhere,wherethechallengedconditionsthemostrestrictiveavailableandimposedondetaineesquadetaineesarenotreasonablyrelatedtoeitherthegoalofprisonsecurity,ornationalsecurity.

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

  • 59

    Indeed,inWolfish,theSupremeCourtacknowledgedthatloadinga1

    detaineewithchainsandshacklesandthrowinghiminadungeonmayensure2

    his[detention]andpreservethesecurityoftheinstitution.Butitwouldbe3

    difficulttoconceiveofasituationwhereconditionssoharsh,employedto4

    achieveobjectivesthatcouldbeaccomplishedinsomanyalternativeandless5

    harshmethods,wouldnotsupportaconclusionthatthepurposeforwhichthey6

    wereimposedwastopunish.Id.at539n.20.Thatisthesituationbeforeus.7

    ClearlydetentionconditionslessrestrictivethantheADMAXSHUwerefeasible8

    fortheMDCPlaintiffs,giventhatthedetaineesheldinthePassaicfacilitywere9

    notheldinisolationorotherwiseplacedinrestrictiveconfinement.Compl.10

    66.PlacingtheMDCPlaintiffsinchainsandshacklesandthrowingthemin11

    theADMAXSHUensuredthattheyposednothreatintheaftermathof9/11;but12

    wecanreachnoconclusionotherthanthattheDOJDefendantsdecisiontodoso13

    wasmadewithpunitiveintent.14

    Inviewoftheforegoing,weholdthattheMDCPlaintiffsfailtoplausibly15

    pleadasubstantivedueprocessclaimagainsttheDOJDefendantscoextensive16

    withtheentirepost9/11investigationandreachingbacktothetimeofPlaintiffs17

    initialdetention.Nonetheless,Plaintiffswellpleadedallegations,inconjunction18

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

  • 60

    withtheOIGReportsdocumentationofeventssuchastheNewYorkList1

    controversy,renderplausibletheclaimthatbythebeginningofNovember2001,2

    Ashcroftknewof,andapproved,theMDCPlaintiffsconfinementundersevere3

    conditions,andthatMuellerandZiglarcompliedwithAshcroftsorder4

    notwithstandingtheirknowledgethatthegovernmenthadnoevidencelinking5

    theMDCPlaintiffstoterroristactivity.Discoverymayultimatelyprove6

    otherwise,butforpresentpurposes,theMDCPlaintiffssubstantivedueprocess7

    claimwiththeexceptionofthetemporallimitationnotedabovemayproceed8

    againsttheDOJDefendants.9

    5. QualifiedImmunity10

    Adefendantisentitledtoqualifiedimmunityifhecanestablish(1)that11

    thecomplaintfailstoplausiblypleadthatthedefendantpersonallyviolatedthe12

    plaintiffsconstitutionalrights,or(2)thattherightwasnotclearlyestablishedat13

    thetimeinquestion.SeePearsonv.Callahan,555U.S.223,232(2009);Varrone,12314

    F.3dat78(notingthatthequalifiedimmunityinquiryturns,generally,onthe15

    objectivelegalreasonablenessofadefendantsactions).16

    Forthereasonsstatedabove,theMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatthe17

    DOJDefendantsviolatedtheirsubstantivedueprocessrights.Withregardtothe18

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

  • 61

    secondprongofthisinquiry,thelawregardingthepunishmentofpretrial1

    detaineeswasclearlyestablishedinthefallof2001.Asdiscussed,Wolfishmade2

    clearthataparticularconditionorrestrictionofpretrialdetentionnotreasonably3

    relatedtoalegitimategovernmentalobjectiveispunishmentinviolationofthe4

    constitutionalrightsofdetainees.See441U.S.at53539&n.20.AndinHasty,5

    thisCourtdeniedqualifiedimmunitywithrespecttoamateriallyidentical6

    conditionsclaimagainstHasty.490F.3dat16869.Weexplainedthat[t]he7

    rightofpretrialdetaineestobefreefrompunitiverestraintswasclearly8

    establishedatthetimeoftheeventsinquestion,andnoreasonableofficercould9

    havethoughtthathecouldpunishapretrialdetaineebysubjectinghimtothe10

    practicesandconditionsallegedbythePlaintiff.Id.at169.11

    Hastyfurtherrejectedtheargumentthatthepost9/11contextwarranted12

    qualifiedimmunityevenifitwasotherwiseunavailable.Id.at15960,169.13

    Recognizingthegravityofthesituationthat9/11presented,weexplainedthat14

    qualifiedimmunityremainedinappropriatebecauseapretrialdetaineesrightto15

    befreefrompunishmentdoesnotvarywiththesurroundingcircumstances.Id.16

    at159.Nothinghasunderminedthelogicorprecedentialauthorityofour17

    qualifiedimmunityholdinginHasty.WethereforeconcludethattheDOJ18

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

  • 62

    DefendantsarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityontheMDCPlaintiffs1

    conditionsofconfinementclaim.2

    C. TheMDCDefendants3

    Inhisopinionbelow,JudgeGleesondividedtheMDCPlaintiffs4

    conditionsofconfinementclaimagainsttheMDCDefendantsintotwo5

    categories:officialconditionsallegationsandunofficialabuseallegations.6

    Theofficialconditionsallegationsconcernexpressconfinementpoliciesthat7

    theMDCDefendantsapprovedandimplemented;theunofficialabuse8

    allegationsconcernthephysicalandverbalabusethattheMDCDefendants9

    employedorpermittedtheirsubordinatestoemploy.Wefindthistaxonomy10

    helpfulinanalyzingtheconditionsclaimagainstHasty,Sherman,andZenk.3211

    1. OfficialConditions12

    TheMDCPlaintiffsgenerallyallegethattheofficialconditionstowhich13

    theMDCDefendantssubjectedthemconstitutedpunishment.Wedonot14

    addresswhetherPlaintiffshavesufficientlyallegedanexpressintenttopunish,15

    butratheranalyzewhethertheyhaveplausiblypleadedthat(1)theMDC16

    32PlaintiffsallegationsagainstZenkdonotextendtotheunofficialabusenortoanyharmarisingfromtheofficialconditionsthatoccurredpriortoApril22,2002,thedatehebecameMDCWarden.

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

  • 63

    Defendantscausedthemtosufferthechallengedconditions,andthat(2)the1

    challengedconditionswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimategoal,which2

    allowsustoinferpunitiveintent,Wolfish,441U.S.at539.3

    TheMDCPlaintiffsplausiblypleadthatHastyandShermanarepersonally4

    responsibleforandcausedtheMDCPlaintiffstosufferthechallenged5

    conditions.TheComplaintcontainsallegationsthatHastyorderedthecreation6

    oftheADMAXSHUanddirectedtwoofhissubordinatestodesignextremely7

    restrictiveconditionsofconfinement.Compl.24,75;seealsoid.768

    (describingtheextremeconditionsintheADMAXSHU).Accordingtothe9

    Complaint,thoseconditionswerethenapprovedandimplementedbyHastyand10

    Sherman.Id.75.11

    TheOIGreportssupporttheseallegations.Whilethedecisiontoimpose12

    highlyrestrictiveconditionswasmadeatBOPheadquarters,OIGReportat19,13

    MDCofficialscreatedtheparticularconditionsimposed,id.at12425.The14

    reportsspecifythatMDCofficialsmodifiedonewingofthepreexistingSHUto15

    accommodatethedetaineesandthattheADMAXSHUwasdesignedtoconfine16

    thedetaineesinthemostrestrictiveandsecureconditionspermittedbyBOP17

    policy.SupplementalOIGReportat23.AsWardenandAssociateWardenof18

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

  • 64

    theMDC,HastyandShermanhadtheresponsibilitytocarryoutthesetasks.But1

    thatalonewouldnotsustainliabilityforeither.2

    Ho


Type 2030 Series Digital Sanitary Gauge - Ashcroft gauge from the experts in pressure measurement. The new Ashcroft ... BULLETIN DSG-1 The new Ashcroft ...

Type 2030 Series Digital Sanitary Gauge - Ashcroft gauge from the experts in pressure measurement. The new Ashcroft ... BULLETIN DSG-1 The new Ashcroft ...

The Turkmen Reality in Iraq

The Turkmen Reality in Iraq

Turkmen, et al., v. John Ashcroft, et al. -- District Court Decision

Turkmen, et al., v. John Ashcroft, et al. -- District Court Decision

The Ashcroft Affair

The Ashcroft Affair

Turkmen jewelry3

Turkmen jewelry3

Turkmen Language Manual.

Turkmen Language Manual.

Beginning Turkmen

Beginning Turkmen

Turkmen, et al. v. Hasty, et al.

Turkmen, et al. v. Hasty, et al.

Fish Histology Manual v4 S. Turkmen

Fish Histology Manual v4 S. Turkmen

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page1 of 109 v... · 3 For a more comprehensive review of this case’s procedural history, see Turkmen v. Ashcroft (Turkmen III),

Case 13-981, Document 266-1, 06/17/2015, 1534154, Page1 of 109 v... · 3 For a more comprehensive review of this case’s procedural history, see Turkmen v. Ashcroft (Turkmen III),

Lee v. Ashcroft

Lee v. Ashcroft

Abdulai v. Ashcroft

Abdulai v. Ashcroft

MINISTRY OF NATURE PROTECTION OF TURKMENISTAN Turkmenistan.pdf• Turkmen State University named after Magtymguly • Turkmen State Agricultural University named after S.A. Niyazov

MINISTRY OF NATURE PROTECTION OF TURKMENISTAN Turkmenistan.pdf• Turkmen State University named after Magtymguly • Turkmen State Agricultural University named after S.A. Niyazov

The Nomads of Central Asia: Turkmen Traditions · of Turkmenistan. The Turkmen were historically pastoral nomads and herders of sheep. The people known as Turkmen are in fact made

The Nomads of Central Asia: Turkmen Traditions · of Turkmenistan. The Turkmen were historically pastoral nomads and herders of sheep. The people known as Turkmen are in fact made

Ashcroft and Mermin

Ashcroft and Mermin

TİKA in TURKMEN ISTAN

TİKA in TURKMEN ISTAN

Data Sheet - Ashcroft

Data Sheet - Ashcroft

Rachel Meeropol Michael Winger CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ...files.courthousenews.com/2014/05/01/Turkmen complaint.pdf · 1/5/2014  · Plaintiffs Ibrahim Turkmen, Akhil Sachdeva,

Rachel Meeropol Michael Winger CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ...files.courthousenews.com/2014/05/01/Turkmen complaint.pdf · 1/5/2014  · Plaintiffs Ibrahim Turkmen, Akhil Sachdeva,

Turkmen jewelry2

Turkmen jewelry2

ashcroft fbi

ashcroft fbi