Doe v. Rumsfeld

• Decision Date: 30 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–5209.,11–5209.
• Citation: 683 F.3d 390,401 U.S.App.D.C. 256
• Parties: John DOE, Appellee v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Appellant. Michael Chertoff, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

683 F.3d 390

401 U.S.App.D.C. 256

John DOE, Appellee

v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Appellant.Michael Chertoff, et al., Appellees.

No. 11–5209.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 19, 2012.

Decided June 15, 2012.

Rehearing En Banc Denied July 30, 2012.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:08–cv–01902).

Henry C. Whitaker, Attorney, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney.

Michael I. Kanovitz argued the cause for appellee John Doe. With him on the brief were Gayle Horn and Jesselyn Radack.

Debra S. Katz was on the brief for amicus curiae Project on Government Oversight in support of appellee John Doe.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SENTELLE.

SENTELLE, Chief Judge:

Appellee, a government contractor identified herein as John Doe, underwent military detention in Iraq. After his release, he filed this action in the district court against, inter alia, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld alleging claims under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd et seq., and a Bivens action for violation of his due process rights. Secretary Rumsfeld moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court granted the motion as to the claims under the DTA and some other claims, but did imply an action under the Bivens due process theory and denied Rumsfeld's motion to dismiss as to those claims. Secretary Rumsfeld appeals from the denial of his motion, arguing both that the claims are barred by qualified immunity and that the court erred in implying such a cause of action in the first instance. Because we agree that the district court erred in implying such a cause of action, we reverse the order of the district court.

Background

Because this case arises out of a motion to dismiss, we, like the district court, accept the well-pleaded factual allegations set forth in Doe's complaint as true for purposes of this stage of the litigation and construe reasonable inferences from those allegations in Doe's favor, although we are not required to accept Doe's legal conclusions as true. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Doe's complaint alleges the following facts:

In December 2004, Doe, a United States citizen and employee of an American-owned defense contracting firm, traveled to Iraq to work as a civilian Arabic translator and was detailed to a United States Marine Corps Human Exploitation Team operating along the Iraqi–Syrian border. Doe's job was to develop intelligence through contacts with local Iraqis and to discover threats to the Marine unit. In July 2005, he made contact and developed a relationship with Iraqi Sheikh Abd AlSattar Abu Risha. Doe maintains that he became the unit's point of contact with Al–Sattar and that, through a series of secretive meetings, he cultivated Al–Sattar as a United States “ally.”

On October 20, 2005, Doe returned to a United States military camp in preparation to depart for his annual leave. There, a Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agent asked to interview Doe. Doe agreed and discussed his work with the agent.

Two weeks later, Doe traveled to Al Asad, a United States military base, from which he was scheduled to depart for his leave. At that point, three NCIS agents, including the one who previously interviewed him, along with another United States official, detained Doe and interrogated him for four hours. Doe alleges that the agents denied his requests to have an attorney, a company representative, or a member of the Marine unit present for his questioning. Doe states that the agents confiscated his luggage, blindfolded him, kicked him in the back, and threatened to shoot him if he tried to escape.

Doe was transferred into the custody of the Marine Corps. After seventy-two hours of solitary confinement, he was blindfolded, hooded, and flown to Camp Cropper, a United States military facility near Baghdad International Airport used to hold high-value detainees, where he was confined for nine months. For the first three months, Doe alleges he was kept in solitary confinement; thereafter, he was transferred into a cell housing suspected hostile al Qaeda and Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party members. Doe alleges that the military officers publicized his affiliation with the Department of Defense to encourage his cell mates to attack him and that the prison guards mistreated him by exposing him to extreme temperatures and depriving him of sleep. He alleges that one guard choked him repeatedly. During his detainment, United States government officials interrogated Doe multiple times and denied his requests for an attorney to be present at those interrogations.

In December 2005, the Detainee Status Board held a hearing and deemed Doe a threat to the Multi–National Forces in Iraq. In July 2006, the Board held a second hearing, after which Doe was transported to Jordan and ultimately to the United States, where he was released. Doe was never formally charged with a crime. He alleges that his property was not returned to him and that he has been placed on watch lists, preventing contracting firms from hiring him and causing customs officials to interrogate him when he returns from international travel.

Procedural History

In November 2008, Doe filed this action against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, other United States government officers and agents, and the United States government. Relevant to this appeal, Doe asked the district court to hold Secretary Rumsfeld personally liable for violating Doe's rights under the DTA and for violating Doe's constitutional rights guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments on the theory that Secretary Rumsfeld developed, authorized, and implemented the policies that caused Doe harm.

Secretary Rumsfeld moved to dismiss Doe's claims against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Doe v. Rumsfeld, 800 F.Supp.2d 94, 100 (D.D.C.2011). The district court dismissed Doe's claims arising under the DTA, holding that the DTA does not provide a private cause of action. Id. at 104–05. The district court also dismissed Doe's procedural due process and access to court claims, holding that Doe had not pled sufficient facts to overcome Secretary Rumsfeld's qualified immunity defense. Id. at 113–14.

The court held, however, that Doe could maintain a federal cause of action for his substantive due process claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The district court also held that Secretary Rumsfeld was not entitled to a qualified immunity defense to Doe's substantive due process claims because Doe had a right to be free from detention and interrogation practices that “shock the conscience”; that right was established at the time of Rumsfeld's alleged conduct; and Doe sufficiently pled facts to support a claim that Secretary Rumsfeld violated that right. Doe, 800 F.Supp.2d at 115.

Secretary Rumsfeld filed this interlocutory appeal of the district court's partial denial of his motion to dismiss Doe's claims against him. He argues that the district court erred first by implying a Bivens action arising out of the sensitive context of a military detention in a foreign warzone and second by denying him qualified immunity against Doe's substantive due process claims. Our review of each of these legal issues is de novo. See Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 704 (D.C.Cir.2008).

Jurisdiction

Although the jurisdiction of courts of appeals ordinarily extends only to review of “final decisions” of the district courts, we have jurisdiction over the current interlocutory appeal. This case fits squarely within a well-established exception that the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity has sufficient finality to warrant interlocutory review, and within the language of Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006), that where “the definition of an element of the [asserted cause of action] [was] directly implicated by the defense of qualified immunity and properly before us on interlocutory appeal,” we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Id. at 257 n. 5, 126 S.Ct. 1695.

Analysis

Doe's due process claims against the Secretary of Defense depend upon the court extending the bounds of claims for relief first recognized by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs may have a cause of action against federal officials who, while acting under the color of law, violate the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, even if no statute authorizes such relief. The Court cautioned in dicta in Bivens, and in later cases repeatedly held, that if “special factors counsel[ ] hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress” or if Congress affirmatively has declared that injured persons must seek another remedy, courts should not imply a cause of action where none exists. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396–97, 91 S.Ct. 1999;Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 298, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 678, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987); Minneci v. Pollard, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 617, 621, 181 L.Ed.2d 606 (2012). The district court in this case held that no special factors counsel hesitation and no other remedy exists for the alleged violations of Doe's substantive due process rights. Therefore, the court held, Doe could maintain a federal cause of action under Bivens.Doe, 800 F.Supp.2d at 111.

We do not agree. The...