On October 13, 2015 two men and the estate of a third man, filed this lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiffs sued James Mitchell and John Jessen, psychologists who “designed, implemented, and personally administered an experimental torture program” for the CIA, under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350) for human rights violations. Complaint (Clearinghouse Document 1). The plaintiffs, represented by public interest and private counsel, sought monetary relief for "physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering." Complaint (Clearinghouse Document 1). The plaintiffs claimed that torture, non-consensual human experimentation, and war crimes had been committed against them during detention by the United States.

On January 8, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that “1) the court lacks jurisdiction due to the Political Question Doctrine; 2) Defendants are entitled to derivative sovereign immunity; 3) the Alien Tort Statute does not confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims; and 4) Plaintiff Obaid Ullah lacks the capacity to sue.” 183 F. Supp. 3d 1121. A motion hearing was held on April 22, 2016 and the motion was denied on April 28, 2016. In doing so the court took “the well pleaded factual allegations as true” and found that none of the contested grounds required the court to dismiss the case. 183 F. Supp. 3d 1121.

The defendants filed another motion to dismiss on November 18, 2016 claiming that “the Military Commissions Act (‘MCA’)...deprives this court of jurisdiction over 'non-habeas detention-related claims' brought by an alien when the alien was determined to have been properly detained by the United States as an ‘enemy combatant.” U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11800. The plaintiffs opposed the motion arguing that this statute does not apply because the defendants are not government agents or military service members and the plaintiffs were not enemy combatants.

A motion hearing was held on January 19, 2017 and Senior Judge Justin Quackenbush denied the motion to dismiss on January 27, 2017. The motion was denied on the grounds that the defendants have not proved “an agency relationship with the Government” and “[n]one of the three Plaintiffs was determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be an ‘enemy combatant.’” 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11800.

The case is ongoing.

Rachel Barr - 02/19/2017


compress summary