University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Dhiab v. Obama PC-DC-0029
Docket / Court 1:05-cv-01457-GK ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) National Security
Prison Conditions
Special Collection Solitary confinement
Attorney Organization Center for Constitutional Rights
Case Summary
On July 22, 2005, a detainee at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, by his next friend, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by attorneys from a civil rights firm and the Center for Constitutional Rights, the plaintiff also ... read more >
On July 22, 2005, a detainee at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, by his next friend, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by attorneys from a civil rights firm and the Center for Constitutional Rights, the plaintiff also brought suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

The petitioner alleged violations of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment; the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; Article II of the U.S. Constitution; the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); and customary international humanitarian and human rights law. Specifically, the petitioner claimed he was subjected to severe physical and psychological abuse while in custody, including beatings, threats of rendition to countries which practice torture, sexual humiliation, exposure to extreme temperatures, deprivation of medical care, and solitary confinement. The petitioner requested that the court grant a writ of habeas corpus, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

However, Guantánamo Bay detainees are not permitted to meet with an attorney without a court-issued protective order and the petitioner's original counsel failed to move for entry of such an order. A new attorney from the Equal Justice Initiative appeared on behalf of the petitioner on December 17, 2007 and moved for a protective order to allow the petitioner to meet with his attorney. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler granted the motion on April 14, 2008. On January 28, 2009, the petitioner filed an unopposed motion to stay this action because he was still unable to meet with counsel in a meaningful way. The petitioner requested that the action be stayed until he was able to meet with his counsel. Judge Kessler granted the motion.

On June 30, 2013, the petitioner, along with three other similar detainees, filed an application for a preliminary injunction with the District Court to prevent the government from force-feeding them. These petitioners undertook a hunger strike in protest of their prolonged detentions at Guantánamo Bay. In response, the government began force-feeding them by using nasogastric tube feeding (whereby a tube is passed through the nose to the stomach) in order to provide enough sustenance to continue the petitioners' detentions. The petitioners also requested an expeditious hearing because this force-feeding would deprive the petitioners of the ability to participate in the upcoming Ramadan fast.

On July 8, 2013, Judge Kessler denied the application. 952 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.D.C. 2013). Judge Kessler noted that it was "perfectly clear . . . that force-feeding is a painful, humiliating, and degrading process." However, she held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, based on a prior decision by the District Court, Al-Adahi v. Obama, 596 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2009). The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on July 11, arguing that Al-Adahi was incorrectly decided, based on legal authorities not previously presented. However, Judge Kessler denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on August 29, and the petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on September 3.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed Judge Kessler's decision on on February 11, 2014. Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The D.C. Circuit held that while federal courts did have habeas jurisdiction to hear challenges to the conditions of confinement at Guantánamo Bay, the petitioners had not made a sufficient showing of a likelihood of success on the merits for preliminary relief because force-feeding served a "legitimate penological interest." However, the D.C. Circuit left open the possibility that the District Court could allow "petitioners a 'meaningful opportunity' to make" an adequate showing.

Based on this holding, the petitioner, as an individual, again moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the government's force-feeding on April 18, 2014, now represented by attorneys from a civil rights firm and Reprieve, a U.K.-based human rights organization. The petitioner also filed an emergency motion compelling the preservation of evidence and limited discovery on May 13, to allow the petitioner to gather evidence of forcible cell extractions and force-feedings for the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. On May 16, 2014, Judge Kessler converted the upcoming motion hearing into a status conference and also entered a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent any cell extractions and force-feeding until a hearing could be held on the issue.

A bench conference regarding the motion for preliminary injunction was held on May 21, 2014, and on May 22 Judge Kessler entered an order denying a re-issuance of the TRO. The petitioner had indicated that he was willing to be enterally fed (directly into the stomach through the skin) if the feeding "could be done at the hospital in Guantánamo Bay, if he could be spared the agony of having the feeding tubes inserted and removed for each feeding, and if he could be spared the pain and discomfort of the restraint chair." However, the government refused to make these compromises. Judge Kessler noted that the court was as a result faced with an "anguishing" choice: either re-issue the TRO preventing force-feeding which would likely result in the petitioner's death by starvation, or refuse to re-issue the TRO and allowing force-feeding to continue. Judge Kessler could not let the petitioner die, and thus refused to re-issue the TRO. On May 23, Judge Kessler issued another order granting the petitioner's motion for limited discovery.

On June 20, 2014, a group of 16 news media organizations filed a motion to intervene to enforce the public's right of access to the video evidence being gathered for this action. The news media organizations requested that the video evidence be unsealed for publishing. Judge Kessler granted this motion on October 3, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the government appealed this result to the D.C. Circuit.

Judge Kessler held a hearing on the petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction from October 6 to 8, 2014. On November 7, Judge Kessler denied the petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the "deliberate indifference" standard set forth in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). On November 10, the petitioner appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit.

On December 8, 2014, the government notified the District Court that the petitioner had been transferred from Guantánamo Bay Naval Station to the government of Uruguay. On December 19, the petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The D.C. Circuit granted the motion on March 9, 2015.

Although the petitioner was no longer a Guantánamo Bay detainee, the government's appeal of Judge Kessler's order to unseal video evidence of force-feeding proceeded. On May 29, 2015, the D.C. Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the government's appeal of the unsealing of video evidence of force-feeding. 787 F.3d 563 (D.C. Cir. 2015). On July 10, 2015, Judge Kessler ordered the government to complete redaction of the video evidence for the intervenors. The government filed a motion to reconsider on July 22. Judge Kessler denied the motion on October 27, 2015

This case is still ongoing in the U.S. District Court regarding the unsealing of the video evidence.

John He - 11/01/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Free Exercise Clause
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief denied
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Assault/abuse by staff
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Excessive force
Extradition
International law
Over/Unlawful Detention
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Torture
Immigration
Convention against Torture
Detention - conditions
National Origin/Ethnicity
Arab/Afgani/Middle Eastern
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Bivens
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) President of the United States
U.S. Department of Defense
Plaintiff Description A detainee at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station who claimed he was subjected to severe physical and psychological abuse while in custody.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Center for Constitutional Rights
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
1:05-cv-1457 (D.D.C.) 10/27/2015
PC-DC-0029-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 07/22/2005
PC-DC-0029-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 04/14/2008 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/29/2009 (2009 WL 211764) (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Memorandum Order 07/08/2013 (952 F.Supp.2d 154) (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 02/11/2014 (742 F.3d 1023)
PC-DC-0029-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery, by May 18, 2014, of Medical Records and Video Tapes of Force-Feedings and Forcible Cell Extractions 05/13/2014
PC-DC-0029-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/16/2014 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Supplemental Declaration of Cori Crider 05/20/2014
PC-DC-0029-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Cortney Busch 05/20/2014
PC-DC-0029-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/22/2014 (2014 WL 2134491) (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/23/2014 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Memorandum Opinion 10/03/2014 (70 F.Supp.3d 486) (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 10/03/2014 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 11/07/2014 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion 11/07/2014 (74 F.Supp.3d 16) (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0015.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 03/09/2015
PC-DC-0029-0016.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 05/29/2015 (787 F.3d 563)
PC-DC-0029-0021.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 06/25/2015
PC-DC-0029-0017.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 07/10/2015 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0018.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 10/27/2015 (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0019.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion 10/27/2015 (2015 WL 6501509) (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Garland, Merrick B. (D.C. Circuit)
PC-DC-0029-0021
Kessler, Gladys (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0001 | PC-DC-0029-0002 | PC-DC-0029-0005 | PC-DC-0029-0006 | PC-DC-0029-0008 | PC-DC-0029-0010 | PC-DC-0029-0011 | PC-DC-0029-0013 | PC-DC-0029-0014 | PC-DC-0029-0015 | PC-DC-0029-0018 | PC-DC-0029-0019 | PC-DC-0029-0020 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Millett, Patricia Ann (D.C. Circuit)
PC-DC-0029-0021
Tatel, David S. (D.C. Circuit)
PC-DC-0029-0012
Wilkins, Robert Leon (D.C. Circuit, D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0029-0021
Williams, Stephen Fain (D.C. Circuit)
PC-DC-0029-0012
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Crider, Cori
PC-DC-0029-0007 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Eisenberg, Jon B. (California)
PC-DC-0029-0007 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Ghappour, Ahmed (Texas)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Jaskol, Lisa R. (California)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Kadidal, Shayana (New York)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Katznelson, Zachary (Kansas)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Lewis, Eric L (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-0007 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Marvin, Elizabeth L. (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-0007 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Murray, Tara L.
PC-DC-0029-9000
Pradhan, Alka (California)
PC-DC-0029-0007 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Smith, Clive Stafford ()
PC-DC-0029-0007
Soble, Richard (Michigan)
PC-DC-0029-0009 | PC-DC-0029-9000
Staffordsmith, Clive A.
PC-DC-0029-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Apperson, Jay (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Berman, Julia Alexandra (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Davis, Patrick D. (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Davis, Kathryn Celia (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Haas, Alexander K (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Henry, Terry Marcus (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Marconda, Scott Michael (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Noronha, Preeya M. (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Prince, Robert J. (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Schwartz, James J. (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Subar, Judry S (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Walthall, Howard P. Jr. (Alabama)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Warden, Andrew Irwin (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
White, David Hugh (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Other Lawyers Bead, Jeanette Melendez (District of Columbia)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Ehrlich, Julie B. (New York)
PC-DC-0029-9000
Schulz, David A (New York)
PC-DC-0029-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -