Case: Doe v. McFadden
3:24-00879 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Filed Date: Sept. 27, 2024
Closed Date: May 30, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
An anonymous Muslim plaintiff, "Jane Doe," filed this complaint against the Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Represented by attorneys from the CAIR Legal Defense Fund, the plaintiff alleged violations of her right to free exercise of religion and due process, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., which requires government officials to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of people in jail and prison, absent a compelling governmental interest requiring non-accommodation.
Following a protest at a city council meeting, the Mecklenburg Police Department issued a warrant for Doe's arrest. In response, she turned herself in at the Mecklenberg County Detention Center, operated by the Sheriff's Office. While in custody, officers forced her to take off her hijab in view of officers and other detainees. A female officer lifted up Doe's shirt and patted her down in front of passers by. Other officers then uploaded her photograph to a statewide database that is accessible to all law enforcement agencies in North Carolina as well as members of the public who search Doe’s name on the MCSO website or the internet.
The hijab is a religious head covering worn by Muslim women. Women who wear the hijab commit to remain covered in mixed-gender spaces outside of immediate family. Doe alleged that forcing her to appear without her hijab and then posting her picture publicly violated her sincerely held religious beliefs. She further alleged that being seen without her religious garments is akin to being seen naked, meaning that the female officer effectively conducted an unreasonable public strip search of Doe. The plaintiff requested a declaration that the search was unconstitutional and an injunction ordering that all photos of Doe without her hijab be destroyed and that the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office change its policy to prohibit requiring Muslim women to submit to photographs without their hijab. The case was assigned to Senior Judge Graham Mullen.
That same day, on September 24, 2024, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction ordering the Government to (1) take all possible steps to destroy Doe’s uncovered photographs from their database and, if necessary, replace it with a new photograph with her hijab, (2) take all reasonable steps to contact any other agency they have distributed the image to requesting its destruction from those databases or providing the replacement photo, and (3) take all possible steps to destroy any existing security footage in their database of Doe without her hijab while in the facility.
Settlement negotiations began on January 16, 2025. The next week, the plaintiff withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties filed for dismissal with prejudice on May 30, 2025. CAIR announced the terms of the settlement in its newsletter. The settlement included an unspecified monetary payment, removal of the hijab-less photo from the North Carolina law enforcement database, and new policies. Those included:
- Individuals in custody at Mecklenburg County Detention Center will be informed of their right to request religious head covering accommodations upon intake, and allowed to wear coverings during their booking photos, and throughout the facility, unless a compelling reason requires temporary removal.
- When an individual in custody wearing a religious head covering is searched, the officer will make reasonable efforts to utilize techniques that minimize the need for removal of the covering. If a more extensive search is necessary and circumstances warrant the need to ensure a compelling safety interest, officers will offer the individual in custody the opportunity to be searched by a member of the same sex and out of view of any person of a differing sex.
- If there is a compelling reason to photograph someone without their religious head covering, the photograph will be taken in private and by staff of the same sex as the individual–and will not broadly share the photograph.
All parties bore their own attorneys' fees and other costs.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (1/7/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69203549/parties/doe-v-mcfadden/
Bell, Kenneth Davis (North Carolina)
Abbas, Gadeir Ibrahim (North Carolina)
Bayado, Nadia Islam (North Carolina)
Qaiyim, Ismaail (North Carolina)
Perrin, Sean F. (North Carolina)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69203549/doe-v-mcfadden/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 3:37 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 27, 2024
Closing Date: May 30, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Muslim woman whose photos, without her hijab, were uploaded to a statewide database of arrestees.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
Mecklenberg County Sheriff's Office
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of North Carolina 3:24-00879
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Religion(s):
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Strip search policy (facilities)
Case Summary of Doe v. McFadden, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47628/ (last updated 1/7/2026).