920 F. Supp. 2d 53
D.D.C.2013Background
- Six plaintiffs detained at Guantanamo Bay allege abuse by U.S. officials or at their direction.
- Plaintiffs bring ATS, First and Fifth Amendment, RFRA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy claims.
- Three plaintiffs were subjected to CSRTs determining they were not enemy combatants; abuse allegedly continued post-CSRT.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Westfall Act substituted the United States as defendant; FTCA exhaustion required but not satisfied.
- Court follows Rasul v. Myers and Ali v. Rumsfeld to dismiss as legally indistinguishable from Rasul I/II outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATS claims are barred after Westfall Act substitution | Celikgogus/Al Laithi contend claims survive. | Defendants rely on Rasul I, exhaustion required under FTCA. | Yes; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust FTCA remedies. |
| Whether CSRT post-clearance distinguishes scope of employment | CSRT clearance should negate scope findings. | CSRT outcomes not dispositive for scope of employment. | No distinction; CSRT does not save ATS claims from scope analysis. |
| Whether Bivens claims against officials survive given immunity | Rights violations under First/Fifth Amendments. | Qualified immunity applies; rights not clearly established. | Dismissed due to qualified immunity. |
| Whether RFRA claims are cognizable for nonresident aliens | RFRA protects detainees' religious exercise. | Nonresident aliens not protected persons under RFRA. | Dismissed; RFRA claims barred. |
| Whether §1985(3) conspiracy claims survive given immunity/rights status | Conspiracy to deprive equal protection. | No viable rights; lack of clearly established rights for nonresidents. | Dismissed; qualified immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasul I v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (scope-of-employment and FTCA exhaustion for detainee-abuse claims; dismissal under Westfall Act)
- Rasul II v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (constitutional rights not clearly established for aliens detained abroad; qualified immunity)
- Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (scope-of-employment and exhaustion; dismissals under FTCA)
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (certification as prima facie evidence of scope of employment; rebuttal burden)
- Ballenger v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (scope-of-employment certification and burden to rebut)
- Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Restatement-based four-factor scope test; burden-shifting on exhaustion)
- Majano v. United States, 469 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (application of agency scope-of-employment principles)
- Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (inclusive scope-of-employment analysis for government torts)