Turkmen v. Ashcroft
915 F. Supp. 2d 314
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Eight male non-citizens arrested after 9/11 were detained on immigration charges and held for months in MDC or Passaic Jail under a broad detention policy tied to the PENTTBOM investigation.
- Policy allegedly directed Arab/Muslim detainees to endure harsh confinement to pressure cooperation, including ADMAX SHU placement, extreme restriction, and punitive conditions.
- Detainees faced aggressive strip-searches, sleep deprivation, limited contact with the outside world, and interference with religious practices; many conditions were allegedly implemented by MDC officials under the policy.
- There are two groups of defendants: DOJ officials (Ashcroft, Mueller, Ziglar) who allegedly authored the policy, and MDC officials (Hasty, Zenk, Sherman, Lopresti, Cuciti) who implemented it and supervised detainees.
- Plaintiffs asserted seven claims (conditions of confinement, equal protection, free exercise, free speech/association, access to counsel, unlawful searches, conspiracy), with some claims directed at DOJ and others at MDC.
- The court granted in part and denied in part depending on defendant and claim, notably dismissing DOJ-related claims entirely but allowing MDC-related claims on harsh conditions, strip searches, and free exercise, while dismissing communications-related claims due to qualified immunity.
- Procedural posture includes prior Turkmen I/II rulings, subsequent Iqbal pleading standard, and remand for reconsideration of the remaining non-dismissed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for harsh confinement under Bivens | DOJ created policy directing punishments. | DOJ policy alone not actionable; need direct acts. | DOJ claims dismissed; MDC claims survive for harsh conditions. |
| Equal protection for Arab/Muslim detainees | Harsh confinement policy facially discriminatory. | Discrimination justified by immigration context; no EP violation. | Equal protection claim sustained against MDC defendants; DOJEP claims dismissed. |
| Free exercise damages remedy (Bivens) | Bivens should extend to free exercise in detention. | Bivens not available; no special factors. | Bivens remedy extended for free exercise against MDC defendants; DOJ dismissed. |
| Interference with communications (First/Fifth Amendments) | Restrictions on calls/visits and attorney-client communications violated rights. | Qualified immunity due to post-9/11 context. | Claims against MDC defendants denied on qualified immunity; DOJ-related claims largely dismissed. |
| Conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 | Conspiracy to deprive equal protection. | Section does not apply to federal officials; lack of state action. | § 1985 claim plausibly pleaded against MDC defendants only; limited insofar as underlying claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (rejected supervisory liability in Bivens and set pleading plausibility standard; clarified direct liability required for Bivens)
- Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (standard for punishment vs. permissible confinement conditions in pretrial detention)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (test for reasonable relation of prison policies to penological interests)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognition of implied damages remedy for constitutional violations)