On October 13, 2015 two men and the estate of a third man, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiffs sued two psychologists who “designed, implemented, and personally administered an experimental torture program” for the CIA under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) (28 U.S.C. § 1350) for human rights violations. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and private counsel, sought monetary relief for "physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering." 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, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that “1) the court lacked jurisdiction due to the Political Question Doctrine; 2) Defendants were entitled to derivative sovereign immunity; 3) the ATS did not confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims; and 4) Plaintiff Obaid Ullah lacked 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. Id.

Following discovery litigation, 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.”'

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 had not demonstrated “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 WL 390270.

On May 22, 2017, both parties moved for summary judgment. A hearing on these motions occurred on July 28, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, finding that "neither side had demonstrated that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate." 268 F. Supp. 3d 1132.

On August 17, 2017 the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the claim with prejudice, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. The court entered judgment that same day to dismiss the case, which is now closed.

Rachel Barr - 02/19/2017


compress summary