Doe v. Rumsfeld
800 F. Supp. 2d 94
D.D.C.2011Background
- Doe, a US citizen and Army veteran, worked in Iraq as translator for a Marine Corps intelligence unit on the Iraq–Syria border.
- Doe helped establish direct talks with Iraqi Sheikh Abd Al-Sattar Abu Risha, allegedly aiding US counterinsurgency efforts.
- In November 2005, Doe was interrogated at Al Asad; requests for counsel or witnesses were denied.
- Doe was detained at Camp Cropper for over nine months, initially in isolation, then in cells with suspected militants and subjected to harsh conditions and repeated interrogations.
- Doe was never charged with a crime; he alleges property seizure, blacklisting, watch-list placement, and travel-related restrictions following his detention.
- Doe filed suit on November 3, 2008 against former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other officials, asserting multiple constitutional violations and seeking damages, return of seized property, and relief related to travel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTA private right of action exists? | Doe argues DTA creates a private remedy. | Rumsfeld argues no private right of action; statute silent on private remedies. | DTA does not create a private right of action. |
| Existence of a Bivens remedy for the alleged violations? | Doe seeks damages under Bivens for constitutional violations. | Defendants contend special factors preclude a Bivens remedy. | No special factors preclude; Bivens action permitted. |
| Rumsfeld's qualified immunity on substantive due process? | Rumsfeld personally approved or knew of punitive detention/interrogation methods. | Qualified immunity should shield if rights not clearly established. | Rumsfeld not entitled to qualified immunity for substantive due process. |
| Rumsfeld's qualified immunity on procedural due process and access to courts? | Doe alleges inadequate detainee hearings and denial of court access. | Personal involvement insufficient; policy-level actions not shown. | Qualified immunity granted for procedural due process and access-to-courts claims. |
| Right to travel claim viability and relief? | Travel restrictions violated constitutional rights; watch-list impacts travel. | Claim vague; require definite statement of basis and relief. | Court denies motion for more definite statement; right to travel claim upheld in pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognizes implied damages remedy for constitutional violations by federal agents)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (limits on wartime detention and allows judicial review of procedures)
- Padilla v. Yoo, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (allowed Bivens-like challenge to interrogation practices of a US citizen abroad)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (U.S. 2007) (two-step test for recognizing new federal damages remedies; considers alternatives and special factors)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1983) (special factors–military structure; preclude some Bivens claims in military contexts)