GILL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1:18-cv-02380
D.D.C.Nov 21, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Gill, a former Navy JAG and civilian resident of Massachusetts, had served as a pro tempore legal advisor in the Al‑Nashiri military commission.
- Defense counsel subpoenaed Gill to testify by video teleconference (VTC); Gill sought to testify from nearer home but was ordered to appear via VTC from Alexandria, Virginia.
- After Gill did not appear, Military Judge Col. Vincent Spath issued a warrant of attachment; U.S. Marshals executed the warrant at Gill’s Massachusetts home, handcuffed and transported him to Virginia, where he testified by VTC. Gill alleges forceful arrest, an invasive home search, painful restraints, inadequate detention conditions, and resulting emotional and reputational harms.
- Gill sued in D.D.C.: Bivens/Fourth Amendment and Declaratory Judgment Act claims against the military judge, two prosecutors, and Marshals (Individual Defendants), plus FTCA tort claims against the United States.
- The Court held that § 2241(e) of the Military Commissions Act did not bar non‑detainee suits like Gill’s; nevertheless, it found the Individual Defendants immune (absolute and/or qualified) and dismissed them, and transferred Gill’s FTCA claims to the District of Massachusetts for venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCA §2241(e) jurisdictional bar | §2241(e) does not bar citizen non‑detainees from suits relating to a military commission matter | §2241(e) strips courts of jurisdiction over any action "relating to" detention/treatment/trial of enemy combatants | Court: §2241(e) construed as targeting alien detainees; does not bar Gill's suit here |
| Judicial immunity for Judge Spath | Spath acted in "clear absence of all jurisdiction" (orders later vacated), so no absolute immunity | Spath acted in quasi‑judicial capacity issuing warrant of attachment; judicial immunity applies | Court: Spath entitled to absolute immunity; vacatur by D.C. Cir. does not show lack of contemporaneous jurisdiction |
| Prosecutorial immunity for Martins & Miller | Prosecutors exceeded authority in issuing subpoena and seeking warrant | Their actions were advocatory and intimately associated with judicial phase; absolute prosecutorial immunity applies | Court: Martins and Miller entitled to absolute immunity for their roles in procuring testimony |
| Qualified immunity & Marshals' conduct | Marshals used excessive force and unlawful detention; not protected | Marshals acted on facially valid warrant and reasonable under Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity applies | Court: Marshals (and, alternatively, the other Individual Defendants) entitled to qualified immunity; claims dismissed |
| FTCA venue & merits disposition | D.C. is proper venue / merits should be considered here | FTCA venue limited to district where act/omission occurred (Massachusetts) | Court: FTCA claims should be litigated in District of Massachusetts; transferred rather than dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) (military law is a jurisprudence separate from civilian law)
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (invalidated prior military commission procedures)
- In re Al‑Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (vacating orders issued by Judge Spath during period of alleged partiality)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity protects judges even where orders are alleged to be unlawful)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocatory acts)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (quasi‑judicial actors may receive immunity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (a judge is not deprived of immunity for actions in excess of authority)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework allowing "clearly established" prong to be resolved first)
- Ashcroft v. Al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (existing precedent must place question beyond debate to overcome qualified immunity)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (Fourth Amendment excessive‑force analysis uses objective reasonableness)