Aref v. Holder
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33598
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are federal prisoners designated to two Communication Management Units (CMUs) at Terre Haute, Indiana and Marion, Illinois, plus spouses, asserting constitutional, APA, and related claims arising from CMU placement and restrictive communications.
- CMUs restrict visits to non-contact visits, require English, restrict phone calls, and live-monitor/record inmate communications; Notice of Transfer to a CMU is required within five days and may be challenged via administrative remedies.
- Plaintiffs allege CMU designations were made with inadequate notice and process, and challenge ongoing restrictions as unconstitutional and retaliatory in nature, including claims of family-privacy and free speech/association rights.
- Plaintiffs also claim the CMU designations create a government-created liberty interest requiring due process protections, and assert equal protection/discrimination based on religion (Muslim status) and activists' conduct.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), plus a supplemental motion to dismiss mootness regarding Twitty; four Terre Haute CMU inmates seek intervention, which the court denies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Jones | Jones faces credible risk of CMU redesignation. | Jones no current CMU designation; no imminent injury. | Jones has standing at this stage. |
| Twitty's claims mootness | Voluntary cessation does not foreclose claims; ongoing implications persist. | Twitty's parole renders claims moot. | Twitty's claims are moot and dismissed. |
| Substantive due process of CMU restrictions | CMU restrictions impede family integrity and are not reasonably related to penology. | Restrictions are rationally related to legitimate penological interests. | Court grants in part and dismisses substantive due process claim; restrictions are rationally related to penological interests. |
| Procedural due process | Not receiving adequate notices and meaningful reviews before/after CMU designation violates due process. | Administrative remedies and periodic reviews suffice; notices provided. | Plaintiffs plausibly allege procedural due process violation; claim survives. |
| APA mootness | APA rulemaking requirement violated, giving relief. | Rulemaking commenced; claim moot. | APA claim is dismissed without prejudice as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, traceability, redressability)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations are valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interests arise from atypical and substantial hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (inmate liberty interests in not being placed in highly restrictive conditions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for due-process adequacy)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (recognition that some highly personal rights may be limited in prison)
- Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (standing pleading standard at a motion stage)
- Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988) (standing by alleging real threat or injury)
- Giano v. Kelly, 869 F. Supp. 143 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (meaningful, substantive reviews of confinement practices)
- Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (statutory/administrative action review standards)