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