Filed Date: Aug. 8, 2008
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involves allegations of abuse and torture suffered by four Iraqi men who were detained at Abu Ghraib in 2003.
On June 30, 2008, an Iraqi civilian who was imprisoned and allegedly tortured in an Iraq prison filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against two defense contractors—CACI (and its wholly owned subsidiary, collectively known as “CACI Defendants”) and L-3—and a named individual who allegedly worked for CACI as a screener and interrogator at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiff brought tort claims for violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), including torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and war crimes; he also brought common law tort claims, including assault and battery, sexual assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and supervision. Plaintiff also brought civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting counts relating to each of the alleged torts. Represented by private counsel and the Center for Constitutional Rights, Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Gregory L. Frost.
In August, Defendants filed a motion to change venue, and the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the case was assigned to District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee (later replaced by Leonie M. Brinkema). In August and September 2008, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against L-3 and the named individual. On September 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the CACI Defendants. This complaint added three plaintiffs and repeated the allegations of torture while at Abu Ghraib, including physical beatings, starvation, sensory deprivation, and many other abuses.
On October 2, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, raising several arguments. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. On October 10, 2008, Defendants also filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the common law tort claims, raising a statute of limitations argument. This motion was denied by the court on November 25, 2008, which held that a different case (class-action litigation involving the same defendant) equitably tolled the statute of limitations for these claims. 2008 WL 7348184.
Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their previous motion to dismiss, and on March 19, 2009, the court partially granted the motion. It held that without discovery, it could not conclude that the defendants had derivative sovereign immunity or that federal law preempted Plaintiffs' claims. However, the court dismissed all claims that relied on jurisdiction under the ATS. 657 F.Supp.2d 700.
Defendants appealed to the Fourth Circuit. On November 30, 2009, Plaintiffs cross-appealed the partial grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss to the Fourth Circuit. The two appeals were consolidated. On February 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' cross-appeal for untimely notice. On September 21, 2011, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit held that Plaintiff’s tort claims were preempted by the "combat activities" exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 658 F.3d 413.
However, on November 8, 2011, the Fourth Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ petition for an en banc rehearing. The en banc Fourth Circuit invited the United States (“U.S.”) to participate as an amicus curie. The U.S. did participate and largely agreed with Defendants’ position regarding their defenses. On May 11, 2012, upon rehearing en banc, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeals and held that the orders denying the motion to dismiss were not subject to interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. 679 F.3d 205.
On October 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the ATS claims. The motion was subsequently granted and the claims were reinstated. The following month, on November 9, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the November 2008 summary judgment decision (about the statute of limitations).
Plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint on December 26, 2012, which included the same parties and counts. In response, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss all five conspiracy claims. After a hearing on March 8, 2013, the court dismissed the conspiracy claims. In response, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint modifying the conspiracy allegations against CACI.
On March 19, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the earlier summary judgment order, and dismissed the common law tort claims of the plaintiffs who had been added in amended complaints.
On April 15, 2013, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims in the third amended complaint based on failure to state a claim. On April 24, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling on the ATS claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel, 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (holding that the ATS does not apply extraterritorially). Defendants argued that all violations of this statute occurred in Iraq. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the common law tort claims.
A hearing on Defendant's pending motions was held on May 10, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the court held that it lacked ATS jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims because the acts did not occur on U.S. soil and dismissed the ATS claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that it would apply Iraqi law to the common law claims, and dismissed these claims because Defendants had contractual immunity under Iraqi law. The court therefore dismissed Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint without prejudice. 951 F.Supp.2d 857. Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
On June 30, 2014, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the ATS claims and remanded the case. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel did not foreclose Plaintiffs’ claims under the ATS, and that Plaintiffs' claims “touch[ed] and concern[ed]” the territory of the US and therefore displaced the presumption against extraterritorial application. The Fourth Circuit also instructed the district court to determine if Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the political question doctrine, which prevents courts from ruling on issues that are properly for the other branches of government to decide. 758 F.3d 516.
On November 21, 2014, CACI filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the political question doctrine. A hearing was held, and on June 18, 2015, Judge Lee granted the motion, agreeing that the political question doctrine foreclosed Plaintiffs’ claims since Defendants were “under the ‘plenary’ and ‘direct’ control of the military and . . . the national defense interests [were] so ‘closely intertwined’ with the military decisions governing Defendant's conduct.” 119 F.Supp.3d 364.
On July 23, 2015, Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Fourth Circuit. On October 21, 2016, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case. The Fourth Circuit held that the District Court erred in its analysis by failing to determine whether the military exercised actual control over the conduct. The Fourth Circuit also ruled that acts were shielded from judicial review under the political questions doctrine only if they were not unlawful when committed, occurred under actual control of the military, or involved sensitive military judgments. 840 F.3d 147. That same day, District Judge Bruce Lee recused himself from the action, and the case was reassigned to District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
On January 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice for the common law counts.
Later that year, on June 14, Defendants requested leave to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied Defendants leave to file and asserted that it had jurisdiction over the torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and war crimes claims. 263 F.Supp.3d 595. However, the court subsequently allowed Defendants to submit a motion addressing their arguments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On February 21, 2018, the court partially granted the motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ direct liability claims because there was no evidence that CACI Defendants “directly injured” Plaintiffs. However, the court concluded that the political question doctrine did not bar Plaintiffs' claims, and that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged tort claims under the ATS. Therefore, Plaintiffs could proceed with their claims based on vicarious liability, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. 324 F.Supp.3d 668.
On January 19, 2018, Defendants filed a third-party complaint against the U.S. and 60 unnamed wrongdoers. The complaint alleged that the U.S. military personnel, not CACI personnel, were responsible for the mistreatment of Plaintiffs and that the U.S. should instead be held liable. On March 14, 2018, the U.S. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. also filed a motion to sever the unnamed defendants. On July 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to sever the third party unnamed individuals and the motion to stay as to those individuals.
On May 21, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on recent Supreme Court precedent concerning the ATS, but the court denied this on June 25, 2018, holding that exercising jurisdiction over the ATS claims aligned with the statute's purposes. 320 F.Supp.3d 781.
On December 20, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss based on the state secrets privilege, which was asserted to bar discovery and use of information central to the litigation of the case, and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. A hearing was held on February 27, 2019. The court partially granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to one plaintiff, and denied the motions to dismiss based on the state secrets privilege and lack of jurisdiction.
On February 15, 2019, the U.S. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from the third-party claims, and if not, the claims should be dismissed as a matter of law due to a settlement agreement between the parties relating to the terminated task orders. The court granted the motion, and the third-party complaint was dismissed on March 22, 2019. 368 F.Supp.3d 935.
On March 26, 2019, Defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal as to the orders on their motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. On August 23, 2019, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 775 Fed.Appx. 758 (Mem). The Fourth Circuit also denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, but it declined to do so. 2019 WL 13415339.
In 2021 and 2022, Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a recent Supreme Court decision relating to extraterritoriality and ATS claims. On July 31, 2023, the court denied the motions to dismiss. 684 F.Supp.3d 481. Defendants filed a motion for leave to appeal in August, but Judge Brinkema denied the motion.
The (first) jury trial began on April 15, 2024, and concluded on May 2, 2024. On that day, the jury informed the court that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision, and the court declared a mistrial.
On May 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and denied Defendants’ on June 14, 2024. The second trial began on October 30, 2024, and a verdict was entered November 12, 2024. The jury found for the Plaintiffs and awarded $3,000,000 in compensatory damages and $11,000,000 in punitive damages to each plaintiff ($42,000,000 total). In response, Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. The District Court denied these motions on January 10, 2025. Defendants appealed. As of April 2, 2025, the appeal is still ongoing.
Summary Authors
Maddie Mitzner (4/2/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4405152/parties/al-shimari-v-caci-premier-technology-inc/
Akeel, Shereef H.
Alomari, Mohammed M. (Virginia)
Azmy, Baher (Virginia)
Bailey, Linda C. (Virginia)
Alexander, Sarah P.
Alomari, Mohammed M. (Virginia)
Buchanan, Michael Francis (Virginia)
Faridi, Muhammad Usman (Virginia)
Fisher, Michael Ian (Virginia)
Gallagher, Katherine M (Virginia)
Haddad, Andrew Inad (Virginia)
Kicak, Thomas Robert (Virginia)
Kinsley, Jennifer M (Virginia)
Mahler-Haug, Alexandra Elise (Virginia)
Mickum, George Brent (Virginia)
Molster, Charles Bennett (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4405152/al-shimari-v-caci-premier-technology-inc/
Last updated Aug. 7, 2025, 5:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Virginia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2008
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four Iraqi men who were imprisoned at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
CACI Premier Technology, Inc., Private Entity/Person
United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
L-3 Services (Alexandria, Alexandria), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1350
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: $42,000,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: