## Facts

- After September 11, 2001, eight noncitizen men of Middle Eastern, North African, or South Asian origin were arrested for civil immigration violations and classified by federal authorities as “of interest” to the terrorism investigation.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, largely in the Special Housing Unit, under highly restrictive conditions without individualized evidence linking them to terrorism.
- Plaintiffs alleged repeated physical and verbal abuse by guards and punitive restrictions inconsistent with civil immigration detention.
- Plaintiffs alleged arbitrary and repeated strip searches and other degrading treatment.
- Plaintiffs alleged interference with religious exercise, including disruption of prayers and denial of religiously compliant meals.
- Plaintiffs alleged denial of basic hygiene and interference with access to counsel and family contact.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were held for months in restrictive confinement pending FBI “clearance,” including after immigration removal orders were entered.
- Plaintiffs asserted constitutional claims for damages under Bivens (including First and Fifth Amendment theories) and tort/statutory claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), naming both line officials and senior federal policymakers and MDC wardens.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Bivens claims based on allegedly punitive, abusive, and discriminatory conditions of confinement imposed on civil immigration detainees at MDC.
2. Whether senior policymakers and MDC wardens could be held personally liable at the pleading stage for allegedly unconstitutional confinement conditions based on policy approval, direction, or deliberate indifference rather than respondeat superior.
3. Whether damages claims challenging the length of immigration detention pending terrorism-related investigation were barred by sovereign immunity, the FTCA discretionary-function exception, or qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss by the United States and senior federal officials.
- The court permitted core conditions-of-confinement Bivens claims to proceed past the pleading stage, including claims premised on alleged physical abuse, punitive confinement, arbitrary strip searches, and interference with religious exercise.
- The court declined to dismiss all claims against senior officials and wardens categorically, holding that allegations of policy approval/maintenance and tolerated mistreatment were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege personal involvement for some conditions-based claims.
- The court dismissed claims seeking damages based on the length or fact of detention (as distinct from confinement conditions), including on qualified-immunity grounds as to individuals and immunity/FTCA limits as to the United States.
- The court dismissed multiple claims against the United States on sovereign-immunity grounds and, for FTCA theories, because the discretionary-function exception protected policy-laden post-9/11 investigative and detention decisions.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true, and dismissal is improper where the complaint plausibly alleges unconstitutional punitive treatment of civil detainees.
- Civil immigration detainees may pursue damages claims under Bivens for unconstitutional conditions of confinement when the alleged conduct amounts to punishment or intentional interference with protected religious exercise.
- Supervisory officials are not liable under Bivens on a respondeat superior theory, but may face liability when the pleadings plausibly allege personal involvement through policy creation/approval, knowing acquiescence, or deliberate indifference that causes unconstitutional conditions.
- Qualified immunity may be denied at the pleading stage where alleged conduct (e.g., physical abuse, arbitrary strip searches, intentional religious harassment) would violate clearly established constitutional limits if proven.
- Qualified immunity may bar claims challenging detention duration where the asserted constitutional limits on investigative or immigration-related detention were not clearly established at the time.
- The United States is immune from suit absent an express waiver; under the FTCA, the discretionary-function exception preserves immunity for governmental choices grounded in policy judgment, including national-security and law-enforcement prioritization decisions.

## Conclusion

The court allowed many damages claims attacking alleged abusive and discriminatory confinement conditions at MDC to proceed against individual officials, including certain senior defendants at the pleading stage, but dismissed claims focused on detention length and broad post-9/11 detention policies based on sovereign immunity, the FTCA discretionary-function exception, and qualified immunity.


Turkmen v. Ashcroft, No. 02-CV-2307 (JG), 2006 WL 1662663 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2006)