Filed Date: April 17, 2002
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Turkmen v. Ashcroft, also known as Ziglar v. Abbasi, is one of two related actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by plaintiffs who were investigated and detained for suspected terrorist ties in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It was filed on April 17, 2002 as a class-action lawsuit, but the class was never certified. The case was assigned to Judge John Gleeson. (The related case, Elmaghraby v. Ashcroft (later Ashcroft v. Iqbal), was also assigned to Judge Gleeson, and was settled following the Supreme Court's ruling in that case, 556 U.S. 662.) This case was reassigned to Judge Dora Irizarry on March 9, 2016, when Judge Gleeson resigned from the bench to return to private practice.
The plaintiffs in this case were men of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent who were arrested by the FBI and the INS in immigration raids following the September 11 attacks. They were held for months in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn as the FBI investigated potential links to terrorism, but they were never charged with a crime. Some of the plaintiffs alleged that they were kept in solitary confinement, barred from communication with attorneys, family, and friends, subjected to physical and verbal abuse, and obstructed in their efforts to practice their religion. They sued the U.S. Attorney General, the FBI Director, the INS Commissioner, and employees of the Metropolitan Detention Center, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, international human rights law, the Civil Rights Act, and the Alien Tort Statute, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Factually, the plaintiffs alleged that notices to appear in court were delayed in reaching them, that they were subject to a blanket no-bond policy, and that they were arbitrarily classified as "of high interest." They claimed that they were subjected to strip searches, sleep deprivation, effective denial of exercise, denial of hygiene items and adequate food, inadequate medical attention, deliberate interference with religious rights, communications blackouts, interference with access to counsel, and denial of consular rights. The plaintiffs further alleged that they were subjected to these harsh conditions because of their religion or ethnicity, and that their continued detention under these conditions stemmed from a discriminatory policy created by high-level officials in the Bush Administration.
The plaintiffs later amended their complaint in light of reports published by the Office of the Inspector General in April and December 2003. The amended complaints added new allegations, claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, one additional plaintiff, and 28 Metropolitan Detention Center employees as defendants.
Four plaintiffs who had been deported were paroled into the U.S. for deposition. This was the first time that non-citizens barred from re-entering the U.S. were allowed to enter for the purpose of pursuing a civil case. While in the country they were under the strict custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.
In 2007, the Department of Justice indicted eleven current and former Metropolitan Detention Center employees, including three Turkmen defendants. Ten of the eleven were convicted of physical attacks against detainees at the Center; those convictions did not involve attacks against the plaintiffs in this case.
Following the 2009 Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, six of the plaintiffs settled their claims for $1.26 million. The remaining plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on September 13, 2010, adding six new plaintiffs and attempting to meet the pleading standard set in Iqbal, so as to maintain claims against Ashcroft and other high-ranking officials.
On January 15, 2013, the district court dismissed all claims against the Attorney General, the FBI Director, and the INS Commissioner (the "DOJ defendants"), and also dismissed two of the claims against the Metropolitan Detention Center employees (the "MDC defendants"). Those two claims, based on alleged communications blackouts and interference with counsel, were dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity.
The plaintiffs collectively and the MDC defendants individually appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit. The appeals were consolidated as Case No. 13-1662; the consolidated appeal was heard on May 1, 2014. More than a year later, on June 17, 2015, the appeals court reinstated the plaintiffs' claims under the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Fourth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §1985, against the DOJ defendants and the MDC defendants. The court upheld the dismissal, however, of the plaintiffs' claims under the Free Exercise Clause.
In reinstating the claims against the Attorney General and the FBI Director for their post-September 11 policy decisions, the court was extending the application of Bivens into "a context not previously recognized by the Supreme Court or Second Circuit precedent." 789 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2015). It was also an innovation for the court to hold that officials were not protected by qualified immunity for punitive and discriminatory confinement and unreasonable strip searches that they imposed on detainees after learning that those detainees were being held with no individualized suspicion of terrorist connections.
The defendants' petition for rehearing en banc was denied; they subsequently sought a 90-day stay of the mandate while the Solicitor General determined whether to appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeals court granted the stay, and the Supreme Court ultimately heard the appeal and issued a decision on June 19, 2017. Titling the case Ziglar v. Abbasi, the Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit should not have extended Bivens liability to the DOJ defendants, emphasizing that "Congress, not the courts, should decide whether a damages action should be allowed." 137 S.Ct. 1843. It held that the plaintiffs' abuse allegations against the MDC defendants did state a plausible claim for relief under the Fifth Amendment, and remanded to the Second Circuit to determine whether a Bivens damages remedy would be appropriate. Finally, the Court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. §1985 conspiracy claims, ruling that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
The Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court for additional proceedings. On February 27, 2018, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the DOJ defendants and referred the remainder of their claims to a magistrate judge. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the remaining (MDC) defendants moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
On August 13, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a report, recommending that the plaintiffs' claims against the MDC defendants be dismissed. The magistrate judge concluded that Congress was in "the best position to weight the costs and benefits of allowing a [Bivens] cause of action to proceed" in the context of prisoner abuse claims such as those brought in this case.
The plaintiffs have since filed objections to the report. As of July 2, 2020, the report and the plaintiffs' objections to it are pending before the district court.
Summary Authors
Dan Dalton (1/4/2008)
Nadji Allan (10/29/2014)
Allison Hight (2/15/2016)
Sam Kulhanek (11/24/2018)
Gregory Marsh (7/2/2020)
Elmaghraby v. Ashcroft, Eastern District of New York (2004)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4325697/parties/turkmen-v-ashcroft/
Apte, Anagha S. (New York)
Avallone, Rocco G. (New York)
Bakhos, Bassel (Maryland)
Barghaan, Dennis C. (Virginia)
Beck , William (Pennsylvania)
Bhattacharyya, Mamoni (New York)
Epstein, Harvey David (New York)
Goodman, William Harry (New York)
Kline, David J. (District of Columbia)
Magoolaghan, Joan Marie (New York)
Oken, Rima Jennifer (New York)
Perry, Robert Thomas (New York)
Phillips, C William (New York)
Quigley, William Patrick (Louisiana)
Reinert, Alexander A. (New York)
Barghaan, Dennis C. (Virginia)
Bell, David E. (District of Columbia)
Bernal, David V. (District of Columbia)
Bloom, Margo Giselle (Pennsylvania)
Bohorquez, Fernando A. (New York)
Branch, Torts (District of Columbia)
Caldwell, Leslie R. (New York)
Caro, Richard Peter (Illinois)
Cohn, Jonathan F. (District of Columbia)
D'Ambrosio, Susan M. (New York)
Driscoll, Melissa Kelly (New York)
Feldman, Cary M (District of Columbia)
Freedus, Matthew S (District of Columbia)
Graham, Robert A (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Dimple (District of Columbia)
Handler, Stephen E. (District of Columbia)
Henley, Madeline (District of Columbia)
Justice, Tabitha (District of Columbia)
Kaizer, NIcholas Gregory (New York)
Kalinowski, Matthew Richard (New York)
Keisler, Peter D. (District of Columbia)
Keith, Frederick Ryan (New York)
Koenigsberg, David A. (New York)
Lahlou, Shari Ross (District of Columbia)
Lawler, William E. III (District of Columbia)
Lawrence, R. Craig (District of Columbia)
Leonard, Christina A (New York)
LoPresti, Salvatore (New York)
Marino, Linda Marie (New York)
Martinez, Michael L. (District of Columbia)
Mcdaniel, William Alden (Maryland)
McLaughlin, Jennifer A. (New York)
Mikkelsen, Deborah Prisinzano (Pennsylvania)
Molina, Ernesto H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Murphy, Justin P. (District of Columbia)
Murphy, Kenneth Charles (New York)
Oleksyk, Joanne Rose (New York)
Olshansky, Barbara J. (New York)
Pyles, Phyllis J. (District of Columbia)
Rosenstock, E. Michael (New York)
Roth, Deborah L. (District of Columbia)
Scarlato, Matthew (District of Columbia)
Smart, Kyler (District of Columbia)
Sponseller, Richard W (Virginia)
Steger, Michael Douglas (New York)
Stern, Paul David (District of Columbia)
Sullivan, Thomas M. (District of Columbia)
Teresky, Thomas Gerard (Illinois)
VanDorp, Armelle Nina (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4325697/turkmen-v-ashcroft/
Last updated Feb. 3, 2025, 3:29 p.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 17, 2002
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Non-citizen Middle Eastern and South Asian men who were arrested by the INS or FBI after 9/11 and charged with immigration violations, and detained for months without bond as the FBI investigated potential terrorist connections.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal
United States Attorney General, Federal
Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1350
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Placement in detention facilities
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Policing:
Strip search policy (policing)
Reproductive rights: