Al-Owhali v. Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16401
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Al-Owhali, a federal inmate, challenged Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) restricting his communications and access to media.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as lacking plausible factual support under Iqbal and Twombly.
- Before argument, Al-Owhali conceded the only disputed restrictions were: (i) correspondence with his nieces/nephews, (ii) two Arabic-language newspapers, (iii) Carter’s Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.
- Al-Owhali’s SAMs since 2004 included a ban on writing letters to certain relatives and on receiving specified newspapers; a later 2008 SAMs extension explained the media restrictions.
- Al-Owhali alleged these restrictions violated First Amendment rights and BOP regulations, but failed to identify a nonconclusory rational basis for the bans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plausibility of rational basis for 2004 niece/nephew restriction | Al-Owhali asserts no plausible rational basis for restricting family correspondence. | Government shows a proffered penological interest in limiting contact to prevent harm. | Dismissal proper; pleadings show no plausible basis to find the restriction irrationally related to penological interests. |
| Mootness of 2004 Arabic newspapers restriction | Restriction limits access to Arabic media; precludes review. | Current SAMs do not ban those newspapers; mootness applies. | Not moot; SAMs expire within a year and can change yearly, preserving reviewability. |
| Carter book restriction plausibility under First Amendment | Belief in a secret ban on Carter’s book; implied without details. | Restrictions plausibly tied to security concerns; no specific facts showing policy abuse. | Insufficient facts; claim not plausible under Iqbal/Twombly. |
| Due process Fifth Amendment claim viability | Claim arises from 2004 SAMs imposing restrictions without explanations. | Claim not properly pled in the operative complaint; concession governs on appeal. | Court declines to consider; theory not pleaded and concession controls. |
| Overall district court dismissal proper under pleading standards | Al-Owhali pleaded some facts suggesting improper restrictions. | Given the lack of detailed facts, dismissal aligns with Iqbal/Turner guidance. | AFFIRM district court’s dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to penological interests; Turner factors guide inquiry)
- Iqbal v. United States, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausibility; not mere possibility)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (fact pleading threshold; plausibility standard)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (pleading stage need not address every legitimate interest but must show plausible basis)
- Jones v. Salt Lake Cnty., 503 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2007) (Turner factors may be analyzed at summary judgment stage; pleading stage focus on rational connection)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal; plausibility standard)