Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 73 PageID# 1

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
BABY DOE, by his next friend. Father Doe;

im APR "5 P 12: m

YASEEN KADURA; ANAS ELHADY;

CLERK .US
CaseNtt,E)fcNi

OSAMA HUSSEIN AHMED;

GULET MOHAMED;

AHMAD IBRAHIM AL HALABI;

MICHAEL EDMUND COLEMAN;

WAEL HAKMEH

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

MURAT FRLJUCKIC;

AND JURY DEMAND

ADNAN KHALIL SHAOUT;

SALEEMALI;

SHAHIR ANWAR;

SAMIR ANWAR;

MARIAM JUKAKU;

MUHAMAD HAYDAR;

JOHN DOE NO. 1;

JOHN DOE NO. 2; and, JOHN DOE NO. 3;

Plaintiffs,

V.
CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
ROBIN C. BURKE,former Acting-Director and former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity;
TIMOTHY J. HEALY, former Director of
the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
STEVEN MABEUS, Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 73 PageID# 2
ANN VESSEY, former Acting Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity;
DONALD TORRENCE, former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
RICK KOPEL, former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
G. CLAYTON GRIGG, Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
DEBORAH LUBMAN, Former Acting-Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity;
CINDYCOPPOLA, Former Acting-Deputy Director of Operations ofthe Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity;
SCOTT CRUSE, Former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
CORY NELSON, Former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
BRYANLYNCH, Former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity;
JAMES G. KENNEDY, Director, Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Director of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHSTRIP); in his individual capacity;
MATTHEW G. OLSEN, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in
his individual capacity;

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 73 PageID# 3
UNIDENTIFIED FBI AGENTS, in their
individual capacities, jointly and severally;
UNIDENTIFIED TSC AGENTS, in their
individual capacities, jointly and severally;
UNIDENTIFIED NCTC AGENTS, in their
individual capacities, jointly and severally;
Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND lURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs, Baby John Doe, by his Next Friend, Father Doe; Yaseen Kadura; Anas Elhady; Osama Hussein Ahmed; Gulet Mohamed; Ahmad Ibrahim A1 Halabi; Michael Edmund Coleman; Wael Hakmeh; Murat Frljuckic; Adnan Khalil Shaout; Saleem Ali; Shahir Anwar; Samir Anwar; Mariam Jukaku; Muhamad Haydar; John Doe No. 1; John Doe No. 2; and John Doe No. 3; for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, through their attorneys. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Michigan ("CAIR-MI"), The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas, and Akeel and Valentine, PLC, state as follows:
Introduction
1. Our federal government is imposing an injustice of historic proportions upon the Americans who have filed this action, as well as thousands of other Americans. Through extra-judicial and secret means, the federal government is ensnaring individuals into an invisible web of consequences that are imposed indefinitely and without recourse as a result of the shockingly large federal watch list that now include hundreds of thousands of
individuals.
2. Indeed, many Americans, including children, end up on these secret federal watch list - which the Defendants have named the Terrorist Screening Database ("TSDB") -

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 73 PageID# 4

based on mere guesses, hunches, and conjecture and even simply based on matters of race,

ethnicity, national origin, religion or the exercise of their constitutional rights.

3. These consequences include the inability to fly on airplanes, to go through

security without having all screeners receive a message for the remainder of a listee's life

that she is a "known or suspected terrorist," to obtain licenses, to exercise their Second

Amendment right to own a firearm, and to be free from the unimaginable indignity and real-

life danger of having their own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of

federal agents, private contractors, businesses, state and local police, the captains of sea

faring vessels, and foreign governments all across the world that they are a violent menace.

4. And unfortunately, the federal government has designed its federal watch list

to be accountability-free. Persons placed on the federal watch list have no means of

removing themselves or challenging the basis for their inclusion. Indeed, people on the

federal watch lists only learn of their placement when they feel the web of consequences

burdening their lives and aspirations, and they never learn why.

5.

Media accounts have made clear that the secret federal watch list is the

product of bigotry and misguided, counterproductive zeal. Americans are dumped onto the

watch list without being charged, convicted, or in some stomach-churning cases, even

subject to an ongoing investigation.

6. Instead, two recently leaked government documents and a governmental report, which include the March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance (Exhibit 2), the Directorate of

Terrorist Identities (DTI): Strategic Accomplishments 2013 (Exhibit 3], and the Department of Justice's March 2014 Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of

Terrorist Watchlist (Exhibit 4) reveal that the care the federal government takes in creating

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 5 of 73 PageID# 5
its federal watch list is void of proper processing, which in turn results in life-altering consequences that flow from these illegal actions.
7. In fact, upon information and belief. Dearborn, a city of less than 100,000 and a place Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have called home for generations, contains the second highest concentration of Americans on the federal government's watch list
Moreover, there have been more than 1.5 million nominations to the federal watch list since
2009 and that, in 2013 for example, the Terrorist Screening Center converted 98.96 percent of those nominations into watch list placements.
8. Upon information and belief, evidence also shows that the federal government uses guilt-by-association presumptions to place family members and friends of listed persons on the watch list.
9. Moreover, travel to Muslim majority countries—travel that American Muslims are very likely to engage in—is also a basis for watch list placement.
10. In 2009, the federal government made 227,932 nominations to its federal watch list In 2013, that number more than doubled at an alarming and dangerous rate to
468,749.
11. Recently, a federal court judge observed in Gulet Mohamed v. Eric R. Holder, jr., etal. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011)), that "[a] showing of past or ongoing unlawful conduct does not seem to be required,... But the Court has little, if any, ability to articulate what information is viewed by TSC as sufficiently 'derogatory' beyond the labels it has provided the Court. In sum, the No Fly List assumes that there are some American citizens who are simply too dangerous to be permitted to fly, no matter the level of pre-flight screening or on-flight surveillance and

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 6 of 73 PageID# 6
restraint, even though those citizens cannot be legally arrested, detained, or otherwise
restricted in their movements or conduct" See United States District Court, Eastern District
of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 19; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
12. Moreover, the Court went on to find that "[ijnclusion on the No Fly List also labels an American citizen a disloyal American who is capable of, and disposed toward committing, war crimes, and one can easily imagine the broad range of consequences that might be visited upon such a person if that stigmatizing designation were known by the general public... The process of nomination to the No Fly List is based on a suspected level of future dangerousness that is not necessarily related to any unlawful conduct" See United
States District Court, Eastern District ofVirginia, Case No. Il-cv-0b050 (2011); Dkt70at 14,
17; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
13. This action is necessary to compensate Plaintiffs and all other Americans similarly situated for the injuries Defendants inflicted against them. Defendants have violated the constitutionally protected liberty interests of Plaintiffs and all other Americans similarly situated as a result of being designated on the federal watch list and being falsely stigmatized as "known or suspected" terrorists, and as a result of being denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation on the federal watch list
14. The reason for not joining all potential class members as Plaintiffs is that, upon information and belief, there are thousands upon thousands of potential plaintiffs making it impractical to bring them before the Court. All Plaintiffs are United States Citizens.

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 7 of 73 PageID# 7
15. There are potentially thousands upon thousands of persons who have been similarly affected and the question to be determined is one of common and general interest to many persons constituting the Class to which Plaintiffs belong, and the group is so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the Court, for which reason Plaintiffs initiate this litigation for all American citizens similarly situated pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.
16. Issues and questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over questions affecting individual members and the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class.
17. The maintenance of this litigation as a Class Action will be superior to other methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice.
18. Plaintiffs and their attorneys. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Michigan ("CAIR-Ml"), The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas, and Akeel and Valentine, PLC, will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class.
Eartifis
19. Plaintiff Baby Doe is a 4 year old United States Citizen toddler born an American Muslim family, residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled. Plaintiff Baby Doe brings this action by and through his next friend, Father Doe.
20. Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura is a 26 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Cook County, Illinois. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 8 of 73 PageID# 8
omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal
watch list is compiled. 21. Plaintiff Anas Elhady is a 22 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim
residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
22. Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed is a 24 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
23. Plaintiff Gulet Mohamed is a United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Fairfax County, Virginia. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
24. Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim A1 Halabi is a 37 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
25. Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman is a 44 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 9 of 73 PageID# 9
26. Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh is a 37 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
27. Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout is a 55 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Jordan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
28. Plaintiff Saleem Ali is a 43 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
29. Plaintiff Shahir Anwar is a 36 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
30. Plaintiff Samir Anwar is a 29 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
31. Plaintiff Mariam Jukaku is a 32 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 10 of 73 PageID# 10
events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the
federal watch list is compiled. 32. Plaintiff Mohammad Haydar is a 34 year old United States Citizenand a Muslim
residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
33. Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 is a 51 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
34. Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 is a 38 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
35. Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 is a 53 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
36. Defendant Christopher M. Piehota is the current Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Piehota was appointed in April, 2013. Defendant Piehota develops and maintains the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Piehota also oversees the
10

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 11 of 73 PageID# 11
dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Piehota is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
37. Defendant Robin C. Burke is the former Acting-Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Burke served as Acting-Director from February, 2013 to April, 2013. Additionally, Defendant Burke served as Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorism Screening Center from November, 2010 to July, 2013. Defendant Burke developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Burke also oversaw the
dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Burke is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
38. Defendant Timothy J. Healy is the former Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Healy served as Acting Director of the Terrorist Screening Center from March, 2009 until he was appointed Director on May 14,2009. Defendant Healy served until February, 2013. Defendant Healydeveloped and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list
11

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 12 of 73 PageID# 12
Defendant Healy also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Healy is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
39. Defendant Steven Mabeus is the current Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Mabeus was appointed in October, 2013. Defendant Mabeus develops and maintains the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Mabeus also oversees the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Mabeus is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
40. Defendant Ann Vessey is the former Acting Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Vessey served from July, 2013 to October, 2013. Defendant Vessey developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list. Defendant Vessey also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains
12

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 13 of 73 PageID# 13
of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Vessey is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
41. Defendant Donald Torrence is the former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ["TSC"]. Defendant Torrence served from December, 2009 to November, 2010. Defendant Torrence developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list. Defendant Torrence also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Torrence is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
42. Defendant Rick Kopel is the former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"]. Defendant Torrence served prior to and through November, 2009. Defendant Rick Kopel developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"], and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list. Defendant Rick Kopel also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Rick Kopel is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
13

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 14 of 73 PageID# 14
43. Defendant G. Clayton Grigg is the current Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Grigg began serving in September, 2013. Defendant Grigg developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"], and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Grigg also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Grigg is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
44. Defendant Deborah Lubman is the former Acting Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Lubman served intermittently between February, 2013 and September, 2013. Defendant Lubman developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database [the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American
citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Lubman also oversaw the dissemination
of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Lubman is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
45. Defendant Cindy Coppola is the former Acting Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"]. Defendant Coppola served between June and
14

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 15 of 73 PageID# 15
September, 2011 and intermittently between February, 2013 and September, 2013. Defendant Coppola developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Coppola also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Coppola is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
46. Defendant Cory Nelson is the former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"]. Defendant Nelson served prior to and through April, 2009. Defendant Nelson developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Nelson also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Nelson is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
47. Defendant Bryan Lynch is the former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Lynch served from May, 2009 to September, 2009. Defendant Lynch developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and
15

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 16 of 73 PageID# 16
other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Lynch also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Lynch is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
48. Defendant James Kennedy is the Director of the Office of Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Defendant Kennedy also serves as the Director of the DHS Traveler Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Defendant Kennedy is responsible for overseeing DHS TRIP, the administrative complaint process to challenge nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list, and coordinating with other government agencies, including the Terrorism Screening Center, to resolve the complaint. Defendant Kennedy is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
49. Defendant Matthew G. Olsen is Director of the National Counterterrorism
Center ("NCTC"]. Defendant Olsen is responsible for Defendant the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list. Olsen is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
50. Defendants Unidentified FBI Agents are employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and include agents involved in the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list. The Unidentified FBI Agents are being sued in their individual capacities, only.
16

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 17 of 73 PageID# 17
51. Defendants Unidentified TSCAgents are employed by the Terrorism Screening Center ("TSC"), and include agents involved in acceptance of the nominations to the federal watch list and the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. The Unidentified TSCAgents are being sued in their individual capacities, only.
52. Defendants Unidentified NCTC Agents are employed by the National Counterterrorism Center ("NCTC"), and include agents involved in the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list The Unidentified NCTC Agents are being sued in their individual capacities, only.
lurisdiction and Venue
53. Under U.S. Const. Art III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights sought to be protected herein are secured by the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFederal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 702, 5 U.S.C. § 706, the United States
Constitution, and federal common law.
54. This action seeks damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) and 28 U.S.C. §
1357.
55. A substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
17

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 18 of 73 PageID# 18
56. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to all Defendants because Defendants are officers or employees of agencies of the United States sued in their individual capacities and because this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
Factual Background
The Federal Government's Terrorist Watch List
57. In September, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft established the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC") to consolidate the government's approach to terrorism screening. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI,develops and maintains the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"). TSC's consolidated watch list is the federal government's master repository for suspected international and domestic terrorist records used for watch list related screening.
58. The watch list has two primary components: the Selectee List and the No-Fly List. Persons on the Selectee List, including many of Plaintiffs, are systematically subject to extra screening at airports and land border crossings, and often find "SSSS" on their boarding passes printed by airline employees which is marked to indicate a passenger's watch list status to airline employees and screeners. Persons on the No-Fly List, including the remainder of Plaintiffs, are prevented from boarding flights that fly into, out of, or even through United States airspace.
59. TSC disseminates records from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies that in turn use those records to identify suspected terrorists. For example, applicable TSC records are provided to TSA for use by airlines in pre-screening passengers and to CBP for use in screening travelers entering the United States by land.
18

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 19 of 73 PageID# 19
60. Upon information and belief, TSC disseminated the records of Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies, including the TSAfor use by airlines in pre-screening Plaintiffs, and CBP for use in screening Plaintiffs upon entering the United
States.
61. Upon information and belief. Defendants disseminated the records pertaining to Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to foreign governments with the purpose and hope that those foreign governments will constrain the movement of the Plaintiffs in some
manner.
62. Upon information and belief, Defendants' intention in disseminating watch list records, including those of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, as widely as possible is to constrain Plaintiffs' movements, not only within the United States, but abroad as well. For example, some countries detain individuals listed on the federal watch list who enter their borders, question those individuals at the behest of United States officials, or altogether prevent those individuals from even entering those countries.
63. Thus, while the TSC maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists, it is the front-line agencies like the TSA that carry out the screening function. In the context of air travel, when individuals make airline reservations and check in at airports, the front-line screening agency, like TSA and CBP, conducts a name-based search of the individual, including each of the Plaintiffs, to determine whether he or she is on a watch list.
64. While agencies throughout the federal government utilize the federal watch list to conduct screening, listed persons are subject to a comprehensive portfolio of consequences that cover large aspects of their lives.
19

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 20 of 73 PageID# 20
65. Indeed, the federal government disseminates its federal watch list to both government authorities and private corporations and individuals with the purpose and hope that these entities and/or individuals will impose consequences on those individuals
Defendants have listed.
66. Upon information and belief, the status of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens as known or suspected terrorists on the federal watch list diminishes and even imperils their ability to access the financial system.
67. Banks have closed the bank accounts of individuals listed on the federal watch
list and financial companies have declined to allow some listed individuals to make wire
transfers.
68. Moreover, upon information and belief, the citizenship and green card applications of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are delayed indefinitely due to an "FBI name check" and not adjudicated, thereby denying Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens of the rights the flow from citizenship, including the ability to travel freely as a United States citizen and to sponsor for lawful permanent residency immediate relatives living abroad.
69. Among the entities and individuals that the federal government disseminates its federal watch list are state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among others.
70. Upon information and belief, because the names of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are included on the federal watch list, their names were disseminated to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private
20

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 21 of 73 PageID# 21
contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and
individuals.
71. Because the federal government disseminates its federal watch list to foreign governments, listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, are often not allowed to enter other nations. This is because the United States is telling other nations, without any modicum of due process, that thousands of its own citizens are "known or suspected terrorists."
72. The federal government disseminates its federal watch list to state and local police officers, including Plaintiffs, which allows those officers to query the names of persons, if for example, the listed individual is pulled over for routine traffic violations.
73. Disseminating the federal watch list to state and local police officers creates a dangerous situation insofar as the federal watch list effectively directs state and local officers to treat thousands of Americans, including Plaintiffs, charged or convicted with no crime yet listed as a "known or suspected terrorist" and as extremely dangerous.
74. With the advent and deployment of automatic license plate readers by police departments across the country, local and state authorities have relied heavily upon a driver's watch list status as the basis of a traffic stop, including Plaintiffs and similarly
situated American citizens.
75. Being on the federal watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from purchasing a gun. For example. New Jersey passed a law in 2013 that banned persons on the federal watch list from owning guns. Additionally, Connecticut is in the process of setting up an institutional mechanism to
21

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 22 of 73 PageID# 22
prevent individuals whose names are included on the federal watch list, such as Plaintiffs, from being able to buy a gun in the state of Connecticut.
76. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are unable to purchase guns in states that ban persons on the federal watch list from owning guns.
77. Because the federal government conducts a security risk assessment that includes querying the federal watch list prior to issuing a license to commercial drivers to transport hazardous materials, being on the federal watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from obtaining or renewing
their Hazmat license.
78. Being on the federal watch list can also prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from accompanying minors or passengers with disabilities to their gate, from working at an airport, or working for an airline insofar as listed persons are not allowed to enter so-called "sterile areas" of airports.
79. Being on the federal watch list can also result in the denial or revocation of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American
citizens.
80. Although TSA, CBP, and other agencies may use the records provided by the TSC, it is the TSC that maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists.
81. Two government entities, including the Unidentified FBI Agents and Unidentified TSC Agents employed by those government entities, are primarily responsible for "nominating" individuals for inclusion in the terrorist watch list—the NCTC and the FBI. The NCTC, which is managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, relies on information from other federal departments and agencies when including alleged known or
22

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 23 of 73 PageID# 23
suspected international terrorists in its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment ("TIDE") database. The NCTC reviews TIDE entries and recommends specific entries to the TSC for
inclusion in the watch list TIDE is the main source of all international terrorist information included in the watch list
82. The FBI, including the Unidentified FBI Agents, in turn, nominates to the watch list individuals with what it characterizes as suspected ties to domestic terrorism. TSC, including Defendant Healy and Unidentified TSC Agents, makes the final decision on whether a nominated individual meets the minimum requirements for inclusion into the watch list as a known or suspected terrorist TSC also decides which screening systems will receive the
information about that individual.
83. Defendant Healy has testified that in evaluating whether an individual meets
the criteria for inclusion on the consolidated watch list, the TSC determines whether the
nominated individual is "reasonably suspected" of having possible links to terrorism. According to the TSC, "reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in and of
or related to terrorism and terrorist activities."
84. Defendants have not stated publicly what standards or criteria are applied to determine whether an American citizen on the consolidated watch list will be placed on the No-Fly List, Selectee List ("SSSS") or other list that is distributed to the TSA, CBP or other screening agencies.
85. The standards for watch list inclusion do not evince even internal logic. Defendants define a "suspected terrorist" as an "individual who is reasonably suspected to
23

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 24 of 73 PageID# 24
be, or have been, engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism and terrorist activities based on articulable and reasonable suspicion." In other words. Defendants place American citizens on the federal watch list based upon a "reasonable suspicion" that they are "reasonably suspected" of nefarious activities. This "reasonable suspicion" based on a "reasonable suspicion" standard does not even contain internal logic.
86. The federal government utilizes guilt-by-association as a basis for watch list inclusion. For example, the immediate relative of listed persons can be listed without any derogatory information—other than the bonds of family. Nonetheless, such designation suggests that the immediate relative is him or herself engaged in nefarious activities.
87. Being a known associate—a friend, colleague, fellow community member, etc.—of a listed individual can also provide a basis for watch list inclusion.
88. Even if an American citizen is acquitted of terrorism charges or those charges are otherwise dismissed, the federal government retains for itself the authority to continue
to include them in the watch list
89. For reasons unknown. Defendants also place what they call "non-investigatory subjects" on the federal watch list, American citizens that they have chosen not to investigate.
90. Under these practices and standards, the number of records in the
consolidated watch list has swelled. Over 1.5 million nominations to the watch list have been
submitted by federal agencies since fiscal 2009. 91. In 2013, Defendant TSC accepted 98.96 percent of all nominations made.
24

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 25 of 73 PageID# 25
92. Because of these loose standards and practices, the federal watch list's rate of growth has increased. In fiscal 2009, there were 227,932 nominations to the watch list In
fiscal 2013, there were 468,749 nominations.
93. Upon information and belief, in 2001, there were 16 people who the federal government systematically prevented from flying. In 2013, that number increased to 47,000.
94. Once an American citizen has been placed on the watch list, the individual remains on the list until the agency that supplied the initial information in support of the
nomination determines the individual should be removed.
95. A 2007 GAO report found that TSC rejects only approximately one percent of all nominations to the watch list.^ As such, the watch list is growing at a rate of approximately 20,000 entries per year.
96. At a March 10, 2010 Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Russel E. Travers, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated that "[t]he entire federal government is leaning very far forward on putting people on list," and that the watch list is "getting bigger, and it will get even bigger."
97. The federal watch list also disproportionately targets American Muslims.
98. Defendants have utilized the watch list, not as a tool to enhance aviation and
border security, but as a bludgeon to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants or forgoing the exercise of their rights, such as the right to have an attorney present during law enforcement questioning.
^See United StatesGovernment Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters entitled Terrorist Watcfi
ListScreening: Opportunities Existto Enhance Management Oversight, Reduce Vulnerabilities in AgencyScreening Processes, and Expand Use of the List, GAO-08-110, October 2007, at 22.
25

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 26 of 73 PageID# 26
99. Public examples of this phenomenon abound. See Latifv. Holder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 854S0, *19 (D. Or. June 24, 2014) (an FBI agent told Steven Washburn that he "would help remove Washburn's name from the No-FlyList if he agreed to speak to the FBI"); Id. at *21-22 (FBI agents told Ibraheim Mashal that "his name would be removed from the No-Fly List and he would receive compensation if he helped the FBI by serving as an informant"): Id at *22-23 (FBI agents offered Amir Meshal "the opportunity to serve as a government informant in exchange for assistance in removing his name from the No-Fly List"). See also Fikre v. FBI, 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 73174 (D. Or. May 29, 2014) (Emirati officials told Yonas Fikre that he "could not travel to the United States by air because he is on the No-Fly List" and an FBI agent told Fikre that "the FBI could take steps to remove [him] from the No-Fly List if he agreed to be an informant"); Tanveer v. Holder, et al. No. 13-cv6951, Dkt 15 (April 22, 2014) (Naveed Shinwari "declined to act as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to spy on [his] own American Muslim communities and other innocent people.").
100. Additionally, government records show that Dearborn, Michigan—which is 40 percent Arab—is disproportionately represented on the federal watch list In fact. Dearborn is among the top five cities in the country, alongside Chicago, Houston, New York, and San Diego, represented on the federal watch list
101. Defendants' 2013 Watchlisting Guidance also indicates that "[t]ravel for no known lawful or legitimate purpose to a locus of terrorist activity" can be a basis for being listed. While a "locus of Terrorist Activity" is not defined by the document, upon information and belief, it likely includes any place where many Muslims reside.
26

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 27 of 73 PageID# 27
102. The federal watch list's inclusion standards are so permissive and pliable and the selectee list's efficacy is at best fleetingly marginal that the inclusion standards themselves violate Plaintiffs procedural and substantive due process.
103. The federal watch list diminishes, rather than enhances, our national security because the number of innocent Americans on the list is becoming so voluminous that the purpose of having a list is significantly undermined as all are being treated as the same.
104. The consequences of being on the federal watch list are meted out publically. Members of the public can witness the extra screening to which individuals on the federal watch list are subject, including being pulled out of their car at gunpoint, being ordered to leave one's vehicle with one's hands held above his/her head, among other stigmatizing
measures.
105. In practice, frontline screeners disclose the status of individuals on the federal watch list to state and local authorities, as well as airline employees.
106. The operation of the federal watch list enlists air carriers to assist the federal government in tracking the passenger on the federal watch list.
107. Defendants apply the federal watch list against Muslim Americans in a manner that is different from how it uses its list against people of other faith backgrounds.
108. Defendants use impermissible and inaccurate religious profiles in compiling
the federal watch list
109. Defendants who contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list knew that their actions violated clearly
established federal law.
27

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 28 of 73 PageID# 28
110. Defendants knew at the time they acted unlawfully that Supreme Court precedent required that, whenever a citizen is deprived of a liberty interest, the federal government must at least provide the deprived with some form of notice that a deprivation
occurred.
Inadequacy of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program Process 111. The government entities and individuals involved in the creation, maintenance, support, modification and enforcement of the federal watch list, including Defendants, have not provided travelers, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, with a fair and effective mechanism through which they can challenge the TSC's decision to place them on the terrorist watch list. 112. An individual, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, who has been prevented or hindered from travel by being placed on the federal watch list has no clear avenue for redress, because no single government entity is responsible for removing an individual from the list. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, does not accept redress inquiries from the public, nor does it directly provide final disposition letters to individuals on the selectee list, including Plaintiffs on the selectee list and similarly situated American citizens, who have submitted redress inquiries. The NCTC which manages the TIDE list does not accept redress inquiries from the general public. 113. Individuals who seek redress after having been included in the terrorist watch list must submit an inquiry through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program ("DHS TRIP"). DHSTRIP provides individuals with a "Redress Control Number." 114. DHS TRIP is the only redress "process" available to individuals included on the
terrorist watch list.
28

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 29 of 73 PageID# 29
115. DHS TRIP submits traveler complaints to the TSC, which determines whether any action should be taken. The TSC has not provided any publicly available information
about how it makes that decision. The TSC is the final arbiter of whether an individual's
name is retained on or removed from the watch list, including those of Plaintiffs and similarly
situated American citizens.
116. The TSC makes a determination regarding a particular individual's status on the watch list, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, and DHS in turn responds to the individual with a standard form letter that neither confirms nor denies the existence of any terrorist watch list records relating to the individual. The letters do not set forth any basis for inclusion in a terrorist watch list, do not state whether the government has resolved the complaint at issue.
117. The government does not provide an American citizen with any opportunity to confront, or to rebut, the grounds for his or her possible inclusion on the watch list. As such, DHS TRIP offers no meaningful review ofthe watch list designation and in effect shields the TSC's actions with respect to the individual nominations or classes of nominations from meaningful review by any independent authority.
118. Moreover, the government's own internal audits of the system point to serious flaws. For example, a March 2008 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report entitled Audit ofthe U.S. Department ofJustice Terrorism Watchlist Nomination Processes found significant problems with the nomination and removal process.
119. Thus, the only "process" available to such individuals is to submit their names and other identifying information to a government entity that has no authority to provide
29

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 30 of 73 PageID# 30
redress and to hope that an unspecified government agency corrects an error or changes its
mind.
120. As alleged below, each ofthe Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are designated on the watch list.
Plaintiff Baby Doe 121. Baby Doe is a 4 year toddler. 122. He was seven-months old when his boarding pass was first stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he had been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist."
123. While passing through airport security, he was subjected to extensive searches, pat downs and chemical testing.
124. Every item in his mother's baby bag was searched, including every one of his diapers.
125. Baby Doe's mother filed a redress request through DHS TRIP on his behalf. 126. She also filed a Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties of the Transportation Security Administration. 127. At no time was Baby Doe, or his parents, given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he or his parents offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 128. Moreover, at no time was Baby Doe, or his parents, given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
30

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 31 of 73 PageID# 31
129. Upon information and belief, Baby Doe's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffYaseen Kadura
130. On September 22, 2012, Mr. Yaseen Kadura was surrounded by eight armed CBP officers, handcuffed and detained in a holding cell for nearly eight hours at the border stop in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada.
131. CBP officers confiscated his phone and informed Mr. Kadura that his phone was being forwarded to ICE and would be returned to him in 24 to 48 hours.
132. Upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
133. On October 22, 2012, Mr. Kadura appeared at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, in order to travel to Libya.
134. Mr. Kadura had previously purchased a plane ticket for a Turkish Airlines flight to Istanbul, and he was to then fly to Libya from Istanbul on Turkish Airlines. Mr. Kadura presented himself at the Turkish Airlines ticket counter hours before his flight.
135. Turkish Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Kadura in for his flight and did not issue him a boarding pass.
136. The personnel informed Mr. Kadura that he was on the No-Fly List and that he could not board a plane.
137. Before Mr. Kadura was denied the ability to board his flight on October 22, 2012, he did not receive any notice, from a government agency or anyone else, that he would
31

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 32 of 73 PageID# 32
be unable to board his flight or that his name was placed on the No-Fly List Mr. Kadura had been able previously to board flights in the United States without difficulty.
138. On or about November 14,2012, Special Agent Arkin Fout, Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI"), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, directly contacted Mr. Kadura and harassed and intimidated him in an attempt to coerce him into arranging an "informal meeting" at an undisclosed location without the presence of his attorney.
139. Special Agent Fout proceeded to pressure Mr. Kadura into becoming an informant in Libya.
140. Special Agent Fout indicated that if Mr. Kadura wanted to remove his name from the No-Fly List, it would be nearly impossible for him to do so unless he agreed to work as an informant in Libya.
141. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura's name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Kadura to act as an informant in Libya.
142. On November 30,2012, Mr. Kadura filed a complaint through DHSTRIP. 143. On May 8, 2013, Mr. Kadura received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 144. Mr. Kadura filed a timely DHSTRIP appeal on June 5,2013. 145. Because Mr. Kadura did not received a response to his DHS TRIP appeal, Mr. Kadura filed a federal lawsuit, along with four other Muslim Americans, on August 14,2014 seeking his removal from the federal watch list or any other database that burdens or prevents him from flying or entering the United States across the border. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 14-cv-13128 [2014)).
32

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 33 of 73 PageID# 33
146. On September 4, 2015, Mr. Kadura's attorney received a response to the DHS TRIP appeal that stated "As you requested in connection with Mr. Kadura's redress inquiry challenging the redress process, DHS TRIP reevaluated Mr. Kadura's redress inquiry and is now providing a new determination in accordance with the newly enhanced procedures. At this time the U.S. Government knows of no reason Mr. Kadura should be unable to fly."
147. On January 15, 2016, Mr. Kadura attempted to check in online for his commercial flight to New York, however he was unable to check in.
148. Mr. Kadura appeared later that day at Chicago O'Hare International Airport in order to board his commercial flight to New York.
149. Mr. Kadura was unable to check in at the kiosk stationed at the airport He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after speaking on the phone with a Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") representative for nearly an hour, his boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
150. He was then taken into a special security room by a number of TSAagents for a private security check before he was allowed to board his flight
151. Upon information and belief. Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorist" attached to Mr. Kadura to Western Union, and as a result, he is unable to conduct wire transfers at any Western Union branch.
152. At no time was Mr. Kadura given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
33

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 34 of 73 PageID# 34
153. Moreover, at no time prior to April, 2015 was Mr. Kadura given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
154. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura remains on the federal watch list. 155. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffAnas Elhady 156. Mr. Anas Elhady is routinely referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at land border crossings when he attempts to re-enter the United States
from Canada.
157. CBP officers routinely subject him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately four to twelve hours each time.
158. Moreover, he is routinely asked questions about his religious beliefs and practices, what sect of Islam he belongs to, what mosque he prays in, among other things.
159. Moreover, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist."
160. Mr. Elhady filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 161. On May 11, 2015, Mr. Elhady received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 162. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Elhady was again referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge Port of Entry
34

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 35 of 73 PageID# 35
in Detroit, Michigan, for approximately six hours when he attempted to re-enter the United
States after a brief vacation in Canada.
163. After the CBP officers confiscated Mr.Elhady's jacket and shoes, they detained him in a small, freezing cold holding cell with bright lights.
164. After several hours, Mr. Elhady knocked on the door repeatedly and begged for someone to help him. His pleas for help were ignored.
165. Afterwards, his body began shaking uncontrollably and he fell unconscious. 166. CBP officers finally opened the door and woke him up. 167. Mr. Elhady repeatedly begged for an ambulance to take him to the hospital, but his pleas were ignored. 168. Finally, Mr. Elhady was taken to an ambulance, only to be handcuffed to the
bed inside the ambulance.
169. Mr. Elhady was taken to a local hospital, where he was handcuffed to a chair in the waiting room of the hospital.
170. After being attended to by nurses and physicians, and prescribed the medication that he needed, Mr. Elhady was again handcuffed to a chair inside a vehicle and transported back to the Ambassador Bridge.
171. On December 2, 2015, FBI Special Agent Josh Allen contacted Mr. Elhady and informed him that his phone was being tapped and that all his calls were being listened to by
the FBI.
172. Mr. Elhady's boarding pass continues to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
35

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 36 of 73 PageID# 36
173. Additionally, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
174. At no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
175. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
176. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady remains on the federal watch list. 177. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed
178. On or about February or March, 2011, Mr. Osama Ahmed appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, upon returning home on a commercial flight from Yemen.
179. Mr. Ahmed was escorted from the gate to an interrogation room and interrogated by FBI agents for approximately six to seven hours.
180. The FBI agents confiscated his USB drive that he had with him, and upon
information and belief, downloaded the information from his USB drive.
181. Several days later, FBI agents, including Special Agent Joel Kelso, appeared at
Mr. Ahmed's home.
182. The FBI agents took him to a nearby bd's Mongolian Grill, and attempted to recruit Mr. Ahmed into becoming an informant in Yemen.
36

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 37 of 73 PageID# 37
183. The FBI agents tried to entice Mr. Ahmed, who was only 18 years old at the time, into becoming an informant by offering to teach him how to sky dive, among other things.
184. Special Agent Kelso informed Mr.Ahmed that his name was on the No-Fly List, and that if he cooperated, his name would be removed from the list.
185. On April 29,2011, Mr. Ahmed filed a complaint through DHSTRIP. 186. On May 2, 2011, Mr. Ahmed's attorney spoke with Special Agent Kelso who informed her at that time that there was no basis to include Mr. Ahmed on the No-Fly List, and that he would make arrangements to remove his name from the federal watch list 187. On May 10,2011, Special Agent Kelso informed his attorney that Mr. Ahmed's name was removed from the No-Fly List 188. As a result of being added to the No-Fly List, Mr. Ahmed was unable to apply for employment at the airport where his brother was employed at the time until his name was removed from the No-Fly List 189. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed's name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Ahmed to act
as an informant in Yemen.
190. On or about 2015, Mr. Ahmed's boarding passes are now stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been once again designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
191. At no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
37

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 38 of 73 PageID# 38
192. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
193. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed remains on the federal watch list. 194. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Guiet Mohamed 195. On December 20, 2010, Mr. Gulet Mohamed arrived at the Kuwait
International Airport to renew his visa, just as he had done every three months since he
arrived in Kuwait
196. After an abnormally long wait of several hours, Mr. Mohamed contacted his brother in Virginia via email to inform him that the visa process was taking longer than usual. This is the last communication anyone received from Mr. Mohamed for more than a week.
197. While at the airport, two men in civilian clothes approached Mr. Mohamed, handcuffed him, blindfolded him, escorted him to a waiting SUV, and drove him to an undisclosed location approximately fifteen minutes from the airport
198. During Mr. Mohamed's abduction, he was repeatedly beaten and subjected to severe torture by his interrogators. Mr. Mohamed's interrogators struck him in the face with their hands regularly and in Mr. Mohamed's estimate more than a hundred times. The interrogators whipped his feet and forced by his interrogators to stand for prolonged periods of time. At one point, the interrogators threatened to run currents of electricity through Mr. Mohamed's genitals. In another instance, Mr. Mohamed's arms were tied to a ceiling beam and left in that position until he lost consciousness.
38

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 39 of 73 PageID# 39
199. Mr. Mohamed's interrogators inflicted these beatings, torture, and grave
threats onto Mr. Mohamed for more than a week. Mr. Mohamed remained blindfolded and handcuffed most of the time.
200. The subject matter of the interrogators' questioning—communicated by one interrogator in perfect American English—indicates that Defendants Unknown TSC and/or Unknown FBIAgents not only facilitated Mr. Mohamed's illegal detention, interrogation, and torture but participated directly. The English speaking interrogator asked Mr. Mohamed detailed questions about his American siblings, referencing non-public facts regarding his family. For example, the interrogator knew the educational attainment of several siblings,
their names, and indicated that he was aware that Mr. Mohamed's father was deceased.
201. Furthermore, Mr. Mohamed was asked questions not about his actions within Kuwait but questions pertaining to individuals such as Anwar Al-Awlaki of particular interest to the United States. It is highly implausible that Kuwaiti officials would ask such questions and torture an American citizen—in light of the dependent relationship Kuwait maintains with the United States—without the knowledge and approval of the United States.
202. On Tuesday, December 28, 2010, Mr. Mohamed's interrogators transferred him to a deportation facility. In this facility, Mr. Mohamed was placed with individuals awaiting deportation, receiving visits from family, and benefiting from the facility's
reasonable treatment.
203. At this deportation facility, Mr. Mohamed conversed with a prisoner who covertly kept a mobile phone in his cell. Mr. Mohamed asked to use it, because his family still knew neither what happened to him nor his present location. Mr. Mohamed made a call to
39

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 40 of 73 PageID# 40
his family, telling them where he was and what had happened to him. He spoke with and
retained an attorney soon after. 204. Kuwaiti officials told members of Mr. Mohamed's family that they are holding
him at the behest of the United States government and are willing to release him since they have no interest in keeping him in custody. Kuwaiti officials attempted to deport Mr. Mohamed but told members of his family that the United States has placed him on the No Fly List which is preventing his deportation. Mr. Mohamed's placement on the No Fly List was confirmed by the United States in conversations reported in the press.
205. Also on December 28, 2010, FBI agents visited Mr. Mohamed. Once he informed them that he was represented by legal counsel in the United States and did not wish to answer their questions, the FBIagents suggested that they had some control over his detention by telling Mr. Mohamed that they could expeditiously procure his release from detention if Mr. Mohamed spoke to them. The agents told Mr. Mohamed that he would remain in detention indefinitely if he did not speak to them.
206. On or about January 12, 2011, FBI agents again visited Mr. Mohamed. Again, Mr. Mohamed informed the agents that he would not answer their questions without an attorney present. The FBI agents persisted, asking him questions for several hours despite Mr. Mohamed's repeated entreaties for the interrogation to stop and essentially continuing the interrogation where Mr. Mohamed's torturers stopped. The FBI agents threatened Mr. Mohamed with future interrogations, criminal charges, and during the interrogation the agents physically intimidated Mr. Mohamed by crowding him and yelling. A Kuwaiti official intervened to calm the FBI agents down and request that the interrogation be brought to an
end.
40

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 41 of 73 PageID# 41
207. On January 16, 2010, at the direction of Kuwaiti officials, Mr. Mohamed's family purchased a ticket for him back to the United States and delivered that ticket to Kuwaiti officials. When Kuwaiti officials took Mr. Mohamed to the airport on January 16,
2010, however, Mr. Mohamed was not allowed onto the United Airlines flight. 208. After Mr. Mohamed commenced a legal action (United States District Court,
Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011)), Defendants allowed Mr. Mohamed to return to the United States on January 21,2011.
209. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed's name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Mohamed to act as an informant upon returning to the United States.
210. At no time was Mr. Mohamed given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
211. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Mohamed given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
212. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed remains on the federal watch list. 213. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim A! Halabi
214. Every time Mr. Ahmad A1 Halabi travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
41

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 42 of 73 PageID# 42
215. Moreover, Mr. A1 Halabi is frequently unable to board his flights until he is "cleared" by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours.
216. Moreover, Mr. A1 Halabi has missed his flights and incurred additional expenses on multiple occasions after having been subjected to prolonged searches and
interrogations. 217. On June 25, 2014, Mr. A1 Halabi was surrounded by armed CBP officers,
handcuffed in front of his children and detained in a freezing cold holding cell for approximately two to three hours and in the waiting area for another three to four hours at the Ambassador Bridge port of entry in Detroit, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the
United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
218. CBP officers confiscated his phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
219. Mr. A1 Halabi no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land unless absolutely necessary for business purposes in order to avoid being subjected to the
above treatment.
220. Mr. A1 Halabi filed multiple redress requests through DHS TRIP. 221. Mr. A1 Halabi received multiple letters as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned multiple Redress Control Numbers. 222. At no time was Mr. A1 Halabi given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 223. Moreover, at no time was Mr. A1 Halabi given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
42

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 43 of 73 PageID# 43
224. Mr. A1 Halabi's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air.
225. Additionally, every time Mr.A1 Halabi travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
226. Upon information and belief, Mr. A1 Halabi remains on the federal watch list. 227. Upon information and belief, Mr. A1 Halabi's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman
228. On or about May 2, 2015, Mr. Michael Edmund Coleman appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, in order to board a commercial flight for his trip to Doha International Airport
229. Mr. Coleman was unable to check in online or at a kiosk stationed at the
airport 230. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after
speaking on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance before he could fly, his boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
231. During Mr. Coleman's flight connection at the Philadelphia International Airport, Mr. Coleman was unable to board his next flight until he was once again "cleared" by DHS to board the flight
232. Mr. Coleman filed a redress request through DHS TRIP.
43

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 44 of 73 PageID# 44
233. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Coleman has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number.
234. Mr. Coleman's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air.
235. Additionally, every time Mr. Coleman travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches, questioning and chemical testing.
236. Mr. Coleman is frequently interrogated about his religious activities. 237. At no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 238. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 239. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman remains on the federal watch list. 240. Mr. Coleman limits travels by air and by land to Canada when necessary in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 241. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffWael Hakmeh
242. On or about April, 2014, Mr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at Chicago O'Hare International Airport upon returning on a flight from a business trip in Turkey.
243. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged
interrogation.
44

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 45 of 73 PageID# 45
244. Additionally, to the best of his recollection, in June, 2014, his boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation for the first time, indicating that he was designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
245. On or about October, 2014, Mr. Hakmeh appeared to have been removed from the watch list, as his boarding pass for his flight was not stamped with the "SSSS" designation.
246. However, in January, 2016, Mr. Hakmeh's boarding pass was again stamped with the "SSSS" designation.
247. At no time was Mr. Hakmeh given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
248. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Hakmeh given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
249. Upon information and belief, Mr. Hakmeh remains on the federal watch list. 250. Mr. Hakmeh no longer connects through Chicago O'Hare International Airport to Detroit Metropolitan Airport when returning home to Michigan from overseas travel. Rather, Mr. Hakmeh drives from Chicago O'Hare International Airport for approximately five hours to his home in Wayne County, Michigan each time in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment at multiple airports and risk arriving late to his place of employment 251. Upon information and belief, Mr. Hakmeh's nomination to the federal watch
list was made based solely upon a hunch [based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
45

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 46 of 73 PageID# 46
Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic 252. On or about October, 2012, Mr. Murat Frljuckic was referred to secondary
inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the BlueWater Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a
brief vacation in Canada.
253. CBP officers subjected him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately three to four hours.
254. Similarly, on or about August, 2014, Mr. Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Montenegro.
255. Moreover, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, since approximately March or April, 2012, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
256. Mr. Frljuckic filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 257. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Frljuckic has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 258. Mr. Frljuckic's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air. 259. Additionally, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
46

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 47 of 73 PageID# 47
260. At no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
261. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
262. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic remains on the federal watch list. 263. Mr. Frljuckic no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 264. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffAdnan Khalil Shaout
265. Every time Mr. Adnan Shaout travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
266. Mr. Shaout is frequently interrogated about his religious beliefs and affiliation with religious groups during secondary inspections.
267. Moreover, Mr. Shaout is frequently unable to board his flights until he is "cleared" by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours.
268. Moreover, TSA agents often confiscate his laptop, and upon information and belief, download information from his laptop.
269. On or about, june 23, 2011, while Mr. Shaout was sitting in the plane waiting for take-off, despite having been thoroughly screened by TSA, TSA agents removed Mr.
47

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 48 of 73 PageID# 48
Shaout from the plane and conducted another extensive pat down and search of his personal
belongings. 270. The entire flight was delayed until the TSA agents completed this search. 271. Mr. Shaout no longer travels by air in the United States in order to avoid being
subjected to the above treatment 272. Mr. Shaout filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 273. On November 5, 2015, Mr. Shaout received a letter as described in paragraph
116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 274. Mr. Shaout's boarding pass continues to be stamped with the "SSSS"
designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
275. Additionally, every time Mr. Shaout travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
276. At no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
277. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
278. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout remains on the federal watch list 279. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
48

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 49 of 73 PageID# 49
280. Mr. Shaout no longer travels by air in order to avoid being subjected to the
above treatment. Plaintiff Saleem Ali
281. On or about October, 2015, Mr. Saleem Ali was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
282. CBPofficers confiscated his two phones, asked him for his passwords to access the two phones, and upon information and belief, the CBPofficers downloaded the data from his phones.
283. CBP officers kept his phones and did not return them until the following day. 284. Moreover, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist"
285. Additionally, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
286. Mr. Ali filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 287. Mr.Ali received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned
a Redress Control Number.
288. At no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
289. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
49

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 50 of 73 PageID# 50
290. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali remains on the federal watch list. 291. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch [based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffShahir Anwar 292. Mr. Shahir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Samir Anwar.
293. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, since 2014, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist."
294. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
295. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 296. On March 23,2015, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 297. Mr. Anwar's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air. 298. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 299. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 300. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal watch list.
50

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 51 of 73 PageID# 51
301. Mr. Anwar no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment or the treatment experienced by his
brother, Plaintiff Samir Anwar, described below.
302. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, familial status or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffSamir Anwar 303. Mr. Samir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Shahir Anwar.
304. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist"
305. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 306. On August 7,2014, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 307. On or about Februaiy 22, 2015, Mr. Anwar was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to
Canada.
308. Mr. Anwar handed a CBP officer the letter from DHS, however the CBP officer
responded that the letter does not mean anything and does not have any impact on the
situation.
51

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 52 of 73 PageID# 52
309. CBP officers confiscated his phone, asked him for his password to access the phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his
phone.
310. Moreover, Mr. Anwar was interrogated about his religious beliefs and religious affiliations.
311. Mr. Anwar's boarding pass continues to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
312. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
313. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
314. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
315. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal watch list. 316. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, familial status or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Mariam Jukaku 317. On or about March 21, 2012, Ms. Mariam Jukaku appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport in order to board a commercial flight to California. 318. Ms. Jukaku was unable to check in online.
52

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 53 of 73 PageID# 53
319. She approached an airline representative to be checked in manually. 320. Her boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that she had been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist" 321. While passing through security, she was subjected to extensive searches, pat downs and chemical testing. 322. Ms. Jukaku filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 323. Ms.Jukaku also filed a Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties of the Transportation Security Administration. 324. Ms. Jukaku received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 325. At no time was Ms. Jukaku given notice of the factual basis for her placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was she offered a meaningful opportunity to contest her designation. 326. Moreover, at no time was Ms. Jukaku given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 327. Upon information and belief, Ms.Jukaku is no longer designated on the federal
watch list
328. Upon information and belief, Ms. Jukaku's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon her race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
53

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 54 of 73 PageID# 54
Plaintiff Muhamad Haydar 329. On or about June 23, 2012, Mr. Muhamad Haydar appeared at the MBS International Airport in Freeland, Michigan, in order to board a commercial flight to Calgary International Airport in Alberta, Canada. 330. Mr. Haydar was unable to check in at a kiosk stationed at the airport 331. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after speaking on the phone with a DHS representative for over two hours, his boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist" 332. During Mr. Haydar's flight connection at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Mr. Haydar was unable to board his next flight until he was once again "cleared" by DHS to board the flight 333. Mr. Haydar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 334. On June 10,2013, Mr. Haydar received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 335. At no time was Mr. Haydar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 336. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Haydar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 337. Upon information and belief, Mr. Haydar is no longer designated on the federal
watch list
54

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 55 of 73 PageID# 55
338. Moreover, as of this date, Mr. Haydar is a member of the DHS Trusted Traveler Program.
339. Upon information and belief, Mr. Haydar's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 340. On or about January, 2015, Mr. John Doe No. I's boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist."
341. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 1 returns to the United States from international travel, Mr. Doe is subjected to prolonged detention and questioning.
342. Suddenly, shortly after Mr. Doe No. 1 was designated on the federal watch list, many of his individual and business bank accounts were closed without notice or an explanation of the reasons why they were being closed, including bank accounts at JPMorgan
Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank.
343. Upon information and belief. Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorist" attached to Mr. Doe No. 1 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank, and as a result, his bank accounts were closed without
notice.
344. Mr. Doe No. 1 filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 345. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 1 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number.
55

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 56 of 73 PageID# 56
346. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
347. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
348. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 1 remains on the federal watch list. 349. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. I's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 350. On or about May, 2010, Mr. John Doe No. 2 appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport upon returning on a flight from a trip to Turkey. 351. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation. 352. During his interrogation, CBP officers began looking through pictures on Mr. Doe No. 2's laptop and asked him questions about his place of worship, the religious leader at his mosque, whether Mr. Doe No. 2 knew anyone who was involved in terrorist activities, and whether he had information about other congregants at his place of worship. 353. Every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, since his May, 2010 trip, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist." 354. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, he is referred to
secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
56

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 57 of 73 PageID# 57
355. Mr. Doe No. 2 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP.
356. On January 19,2016, Mr. Doe No. 2 received a letter as described in paragraph 116 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number.
357. At no time was Mr.Doe No. 2 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest
his designation.
358. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
359. As of the date of this filing, it is unclear whether Mr. Doe No. 2 remains on the
federal watch list
360. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 2's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 361. Every time Mr. John Doe No. 3 travels by air, since 2002, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist" 362. In fact, in 2002, upon returning from an international flight, Mr. Doe No. 3 was escorted off of the plane by FBI agents, before he was interrogated and threatened by agents from different government agencies. 363. Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently unable to board his flights until he is "cleared" by DHS to board the flight, a process that can take hours.
57

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 58 of 73 PageID# 58
364. Moreover, Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently called over the loud speakers at the airport after he has already reached the gate prior to take offto go back to security, only to be detained and subjected to further prolonged interrogations and searches.
365. Additionally, TSA agents confiscated his phones, requested his passwords, and upon information and belief, downloaded information from them.
366. On or about 2006, Mr. Doe No. 3's JPMorgan Chase Bank was suddenly closed a few days after he opened it without notice or an explanation of the reasons why it was being closed.
367. Upon information and belief. Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorist" attached to Mr. Doe No. 3 to JPMorgan
Chase Bank, and as a result, his bank account was closed without notice.
368. Mr. Doe No. 3 lost lucrative employment opportunities as a result of being designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
369. Mr. Doe No. 3 filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 370. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 3 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 371. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 372. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 373. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3 remains on the federal watch list
58

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 59 of 73 PageID# 59
374. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3's nominationto the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities].
375. Mr. Doe No. 3 limits travels by air when necessary in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
Class Action Allegations
376. Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23, on behalf of:
a. All American citizens who are currently placed on the No Fly List component of the federal watch list, whose names were added prior to April, 2015;
b. All American citizens who are currently placed on the Selectee List component of the federal watch list;
c. All American citizens who were placed on the No Fly List component of the federal watch list prior to April, 2015, who are no longer placed on the federal watch list, and who fall within the applicable statute oflimitations;
d. AllAmerican citizens who were placed on the Selectee List component of the federal watch list, who are no longer placed on the federal watch list, and who fall within the applicable statute of limitations;
e. All American citizen minors who were placed on the federal watch list while they were under the age of ten at the time of the placement;
f. Excluded from the Class are all persons who were placed on the No Fly List component of the federal watch list after April, 2015; and,
59

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 60 of 73 PageID# 60
g. Excluded from the Class are all persons who are currently placed on the
federal watch list who have been charged or convicted of a terrorism-
related offense.
377. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown at the present time, it is estimated that there are thousands upon thousands of members in the Class.
378. Despite the numerical size of the Class, the identities of the Classmembers can be ascertained through Defendants' records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of this action as a class action.
379. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously prosecute this action and have retained competent counsel experienced in class action litigation. Plaintiffs are Class members and have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with other Class members. Plaintiffs are represented by lawyers who have had experience in prosecuting class actions and complex civil rights and constitutional matters, and will adequately represent the purported Class in this action.
380. Additionally, one of the lawyers, Gadeir Abbas, Esq., has obtained a security clearance which allows him to handle and utilize Sensitive Security Information designated as such by the federal government and which he obtained in furtherance of federal watch list litigation before this court.
381. This action raises numerous questions of law and fact which are common to the Class members, including:
a. Whether Defendants' actions violated constitutionally protected liberty interests by placing American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the
60

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 61 of 73 PageID# 61
Class on the federal watch list and denying them notice of their inclusion on the federal watch list, even after Defendants imposed the deprivation; b. Whether Defendants' actions violated the liberty interest of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class in traveling free from unreasonable burdens within, to, and from the United States, through land border crossings and over U.S. air space; c. Whether Defendants' actions violated the right of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class to be free from false government stigmatization as individuals who are "known or suspected to be" terrorists, or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity, when such harm arises in conjunction with the deprivation of their right to travel on the same terms as other travelers and/or the deprivation of their liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment in travel free from unreasonable burdens that are not narrowly tailored; d. Whether Defendants' actions violated the liberty interest of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class in nonattainder (ie: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial). Defendants' actions have singled out Plaintiffs and members of the Class for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and
false association with a list of individuals connected to terrorism;
61

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 62 of 73 PageID# 62
e. Whether Defendants' actions violated the rights of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class by being denied a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism that affords any notice at all of their inclusion
on the federal watch list;
f. Whether Defendants' actions violated the rights of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class to be free from false stigmatization when they disseminated the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals;
g. Whether Defendants' actions violated the right of American citizens like
Plaintiffs and members of the Class not to be treated as second-class citizens;
h. Whether Defendants' watch list lacks a compelling interest or a legitimate or public purpose insofar as their true purpose is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming
informants;
i. Whether Defendants' watch list is not narrowly tailored insofar as the federal watch list is entirely and demonstrably ineffectual and obvious
alternatives exist;
j. Whether Defendants' dissemination of the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring
62

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 63 of 73 PageID# 63
vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals is arbitrary and capricious, shocks the conscience, violates the decencies of
civilized conduct and is so brutal and offensive that it does not comport with the traditional ideas of fair play and decency;
k. Whether Defendants' placement of Plaintiffs and members of the Class is narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest;
1. Whether Defendants have violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class by denying them due process of law;
m. Whether Defendants actions have had a discriminatory effect upon and have disparately impacted Muslim American travelers, and not travelers
of other faiths; n. Whether Defendants' above-described actions were motivated by
Plaintiffs' religious status and on the basis of Plaintiffs' constitutionallyprotected free exercise of religion;
o. Whether the Class is entitled to damages;
p. Whether Defendants' who contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and
members of the Class are liable; and,
q. The per se damages amount that each Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to for being inflicted with the same injury: inclusion in the
Terrorist Screening Database. 382. The claims or defenses of the represented parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the Class. Plaintiffs have the same interests as other Class members in
63

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 64 of 73 PageID# 64
prosecuting the claims against the Defendants. Plaintiffs and all the members of the Class
sustained damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct. 383. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. Common issues predominate. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigations make it extraordinarily difficult for Class members to
redress the wrongs done to them individually.
COUNT 1
FAILURE TO PROVIDE POST-DEPRIVATION NOTICE AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS flurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. g 1331 and 5 U.S.C ^ 7021
384. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 385. Each of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens learned that he or she was placed on the federal watch list subsequent to being added on the federal watch list and sought to challenge such placement 386. Defendants' actions as described above in refusing to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens with any notice at all of their placement which deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of constitutionally protected liberty interests. 387. Defendants' actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that '"nominations' must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h3[3).
64

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 65 of 73 PageID# 65
388. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a liberty interest
in traveling free from unreasonable burdensthat are not reasonably tailored within, to,and
from the United States, through land border crossings and over U.S. air space. 389. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a right to be free
from false government stigmatization as individuals who are "known or suspected to be"
terrorists, or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity, when such harm arises in
conjunction with the additional consequences that follow from being listed as well as the deprivation of their right to travel on the same terms as other travelers and/or the deprivation of their liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment in travel free from
unreasonable burdens.
390. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a liberty interest in nonattainder (ie: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial). Defendants' actions have singled out Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals suspected of terrorism.
391. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, having been burdened or prevented from boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, having had their bank accounts closed, having been prevented from making wire transfers at financial institutions, having had their citizenship applications delayed indefinitely due to an "FBI name check," having lost lucrative economic opportunities and suffering from other forms of financial harm, and having sought to challenge their placement on the federal watch list, are entitled to a constitutionally
65

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 66 of 73 PageID# 66
adequate legal mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal watchlist and a meaningful opportunityto contesttheir continued
inclusion on the federal watch list Defendants have even failed to provide the most basic
ingredient ofdueprocess, which is notice that the government has deprived a personoftheir
protected rights.
392. Moreover, Defendants have officially imposed on Plaintiffsand other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizinglabel of"known or suspected terrorists" without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism.
393. Further, Defendants disseminated the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and localauthorities, foreigngovernments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels,among other official and private entities and individuals.
394. By imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizinglabel of "known or suspected terrorists" and by failing to provide Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of their protected liberty interests, including but not limited to their liberty interests in traveling, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder, and thus violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens without affording them due process of law and
will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American
citizens are not afforded the relief demanded below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members, respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgment be entered against Defendants
66

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 67 of 73 PageID# 67
for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as maybe proven, a trial by jury, plusall such other reliefthis Court deems just and proper includingcosts and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
COUNT II
DEPRIVATION OF PROTECTED LIBERTIES IN VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ffurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. g 1331 and 5 U.S.C. ^ 7021
395. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 396. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens were listed
by Defendants in a manner not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Defendants'
actions as described above in including Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on a watch list that unreasonably burdens or prevents them from boarding commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings,are arbitrary and capricious,lack even a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, and have unduly deprived Plaintiffs of constitutionally protected rights, including their liberty interests in travel, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder.
397. Defendants' actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that '"nominations' must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h][3).
398. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list. Defendants have placed an undue burden on their fundamental right of
movement
67

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 68 of 73 PageID# 68
399. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the
federal watch list, Defendants have treated Plaintiffs like second-class citizens. 400. Defendants' watch list lacks a compelling interest insofar as their true purpose
is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming
informants.
401. Defendants' watch list are also not narrowly tailored insofar as the federal watch list are entirely and demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist
402. Defendants' actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffsand other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists," and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains ofsea-faring vessels,amongother official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, are arbitrary and capricious, shock the conscience, violate the decencies of civilized conduct and are so brutal and offensive that they do not comport with the traditional ideas of fair play and decency.
403. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have not been charged with any crimes and are United States Citizens, Plaintiffs challenge their placement and the placement of others similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list on a broad, as-applied basis.
404. Plaintiffs' substantive due process challenge is also facial, as there are no circumstances where their placement or the placement of others similarly situated on the federal watch list is narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest.
68

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 69 of 73 PageID# 69
405. Defendants have thus violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and the
constitutional rights of other similarly situated American citizens without affording them due process oflaw and will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated American citizens are not afforded the relief demanded below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members,
respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgment be enteredagainst Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as maybe proven, a trial by jury,plusall such other reliefthis Court
deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
CQUNTHI UNLAWFUL AGENCY ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702,706
flurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331 and 5 U.S.C. g 7021
406. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 407. Defendants' actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffsand other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists," and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains ofsea-faringvessels,among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, were and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
69

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 70 of 73 PageID# 70
408. Defendants' actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that '"nominations' must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3).
409. Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens,who had been unreasonably burdened or denied boarding on commercial flights or
enteringthe United Statesacross the border and soughtto challenge their placement on the federal watch list, with a constitutionally adequate mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal watch list and a meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal watch list is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706. 410. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens do not
present a security threat to commercial aviation. Defendants' actions as described above in including Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list that unreasonably burdens or prevents them from boarding commercial flights or entering the United States across the border, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
411. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens are not required to exhaust the DHS TRIP process, under the holding in Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993).
70

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 71 of 73 PageID# 71
See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 22; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members,
respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgmentbe entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven, a trial by jury, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
COUNT yv
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Non-Delegationl 412. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.
413. Congress has not provided the Executive Branch with intelligible principles from which the Executive can implement its watch list schemes regarding civil aviation and
national security. 414. The Executive Branch's assignment of the watch listing function to TSC
violates Congress' directive that TSA determine who belongs on federal watch lists and the consequences that flow from being on those lists.
415. Congress has not delegated to TSA the authority to create a process that can
culminate in the removal of individuals from the TSDB.
416. In the alternative, Congress's delegation to TSA to create a redress process is defective because the Executive Branch has allocated watch list authority in a manner that prevents TSA from creating a redress process.
417. As a result. Defendants have illegally acted beyond their authority.
71

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 72 of 73 PageID# 72
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members, respectfully demand that the Classbe certified, that judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven, a trial by jury, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:
1. The Class be certified;
2. That judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages
as may be proven; 3. A trial by jury;
4. An award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412; and, 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
72

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 73 of 73 PageID# 73

lURY DEMAND

NOW COME Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by

and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand trial by jury of the above-

referenced causes of action.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LA

ICE OF GADEIR ABBAS

BY: /s/ GamSrlujtes^
GADEIR I. ABBAS
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1155 F Street NW, Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (720) 251-0425 Fax: (720) 251-0425 Email: gadeir.abbas@gmail.com

Licensed in Virginia, not in D.C. Practice limited to federal matters

COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC
RELATIONS, MICHIGAN

BY: /s/ Lena Masri LENAF. MASRI (P73461) Attorney for Plaintiffs Legal Director 30201 Orchard Lake Rd., Suite 260 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Phone: (248) 559-2247

AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLLC

BY: /s/Shereef Akeel SHEREEF H. AKEEL (P54345) Attorney for Plaintiffs 888 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 910 Troy, Ml 48084 Phone: (248) 269-9595
shereef@akeelvalentine.com

Dated: April 5,2016
73

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 95 PageID# 362

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

BABY DOE, by his next friend, Father Doe;

)

BABY DOE 2, by his next friend, Father Doe 2; )

YASEEN KADURA;

)

ANAS ELHADY;

)

OSAMA HUSSEIN AHMED;

)

GULET MOHAMED;

)

AUSAMA ELHUZAYEL;

)

DONALD THOMAS;

)

AHMAD IBRAHIM AL HALABI;

)

MICHAEL EDMUND COLEMAN;

)

WAEL HAKMEH;

)

MURAT FRLJUCKIC;

)

MARK AMRI;

)

ADNAN KHALIL SHAOUT;

)

SALEEM ALI;

)

SHAHIR ANWAR;

)

SAMIR ANWAR;

)

MARIAM JUKAKU;

)

MUHAMAD HAYDAR;

)

MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN;

)

HASSAN FARES;

)

JOHN DOE NO. 1;

)

JOHN DOE NO. 2;

)

JOHN DOE NO. 3; and,

)

JOHN DOE NO. 4;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, Director of the )

Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual )

capacity;

)

)

ROBIN C. BURKE, former Acting-Director

)

and former Principal Deputy Director of

)

the Terrorist Screening Center; in her

)

individual capacity;

)

)

Case No. 13-CV-00373 Hon. James C. Cacheris Magistrate Michael S. Nachmanoff FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

1

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 95 PageID# 363

TIMOTHY J. HEALY, former Director of

)

the Terrorist Screening Center; in his

)

individual capacity;

)

)

STEVEN MABEUS, Principal Deputy

)

Director of the Terrorist Screening Center;

)

in his individual capacity;

)

)

ANNE VEYSEY, former Acting Principal Deputy )

Director of the Terrorist Screening Center;

)

in her individual capacity;

)

)

DONALD TORRENCE, former Principal

)

Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening

)

Center; in his individual capacity;

)

)

RICK KOPEL, former Principal Deputy

)

Director of the Terrorist Screening Center;

)

in his individual capacity;

)

)

G. CLAYTON GRIGG, Deputy Director of

)

Operations of the Terrorist Screening

)

Center; in his individual capacity;

)

)

DEBORAH LUBMAN, Former Acting-Deputy )

Director of Operations of the Terrorist

)

Screening Center; in her individual capacity; )

)

CINDY COPPOLA, Former Acting-Deputy

)

Director of Operations of the Terrorist

)

Screening Center; in her individual capacity; )

)

SCOTT CRUSE, Former Deputy Director

)

of Operations of the Terrorist Screening

)

Center; in his individual capacity;

)

)

CORY NELSON, Former Deputy Director

)

of Operations of the Terrorist Screening

)

Center; in his individual capacity;

)

)

BRYAN LYNCH, Former Deputy Director

)

of Operations of the Terrorist Screening

)

Center; in his individual capacity;

)

)

2

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 95 PageID# 364

JAMES G. KENNEDY, Director, Transportation )

Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation

)

Security Administration (TSA), United States )

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and )

Director of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry )

Program (DHS TRIP); in his individual capacity; )

)

MATTHEW G. OLSEN, Director of the

)

National Counterterrorism Center, in

)

his individual capacity;

)

)

UNIDENTIFIED FBI AGENTS, in their

)

individual capacities, jointly and severally;

)

)

UNIDENTIFIED TSC AGENTS, in their

)

individual capacities, jointly and severally;

)

)

UNIDENTIFIED NCTC AGENTS, in their

)

individual capacities, jointly and severally;

)

)

Defendants.

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, Baby Doe, by his Next Friend, Father Doe; Baby Doe 2, by his Next Friend,

Father Doe 2; Yaseen Kadura; Anas Elhady; Osama Hussein Ahmed; Gulet Mohamed;

Ausama Elhuzayel; Donald Thomas; Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi; Michael Edmund

Coleman; Wael Hakmeh; Murat Frljuckic; Mark Amri; Adnan Khalil Shaout; Saleem Ali;

Shahir Anwar; Samir Anwar; Mariam Jukaku; Muhamad Haydar; Muhammad Yahya

Khan; Hassan Fares; John Doe No. 1; John Doe No. 2; and John Doe No. 3; and, John Doe

No. 4 for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, through their attorneys,

Council on American-Islamic Relations, Michigan (“CAIR-MI”), The Law Office of Gadeir

Abbas, and Akeel and Valentine, PLC, state as follows:

3

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 95 PageID# 365
Introduction 1. Our federal government is imposing an injustice of historic proportions upon the Americans who have filed this action, as well as thousands of other Americans. Through extra-judicial and secret means, the federal government is ensnaring individuals into an invisible web of consequences that are imposed indefinitely and without recourse as a result of the shockingly large federal watch list that now include hundreds of thousands of individuals. 2. Indeed, many Americans, including children, end up on these secret federal watch list – which the Defendants have named the Terrorist Screening Database (“TSDB”) – based on mere guesses, hunches, and conjecture and even simply based on matters of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the exercise of their constitutional rights. 3. These consequences include the inability to fly on airplanes, to go through security without having all screeners receive a message for the remainder of a listee’s life that he or she is a "known or suspected terrorist," to obtain licenses, to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm, and to be free from the unimaginable indignity and reallife danger of having their own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of federal agents, private contractors, businesses, state and local police, the captains of seafaring vessels, and foreign governments all across the world that they are a violent menace. 4. And unfortunately, the federal government has designed its federal watch list to be accountability-free. Persons placed on the federal watch list have no means of removing themselves or challenging the basis for their inclusion. Indeed, people on the federal watch lists only learn of their placement when they feel the web of consequences burdening their lives and aspirations, and they never learn why.
4

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 5 of 95 PageID# 366
5. Media accounts have made clear that the secret federal watch list is the product of bigotry and misguided, counterproductive zeal. Americans are dumped onto the watch list without being charged, convicted, or in some stomach-churning cases, even subject to an ongoing investigation.
6. Instead, two recently leaked government documents and a governmental report, which include the March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance (Exhibit 2), the Directorate of Terrorist Identities (DTI): Strategic Accomplishments 2013 (Exhibit 3), and the Department of Justice's March 2014 Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of Terrorist Watchlist (Exhibit 4) reveal that the care the federal government takes in creating its federal watch list is void of proper processing, which in turn results in life-altering consequences that flow from these illegal actions.
7. In fact, upon information and belief, Dearborn, a city of less than 100,000 and a place Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have called home for generations, contains the second highest concentration of Americans on the federal government's watch list. Moreover, there have been more than 1.5 million nominations to the federal watch list since 2009 and that, in 2013 for example, the Terrorist Screening Center converted 98.96 percent of those nominations into watch list placements.
8. Upon information and belief, evidence also shows that the federal government uses guilt-by-association presumptions to place family members and friends of listed persons on the watch list.
9. Moreover, travel to Muslim majority countries—travel that American Muslims are very likely to engage in—is also a basis for watch list placement.
5

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 6 of 95 PageID# 367
10. In 2009, the federal government made 227,932 nominations to its federal watch list. In 2013, that number more than doubled at an alarming and dangerous rate to 468,749.
11. Recently, a federal court judge observed in Gulet Mohamed v. Eric R. Holder, Jr., et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11-cv-00050 (2011)), that “[a] showing of past or ongoing unlawful conduct does not seem to be required,… But the Court has little, if any, ability to articulate what information is viewed by TSC as sufficiently ‘derogatory’ beyond the labels it has provided the Court. In sum, the No Fly List assumes that there are some American citizens who are simply too dangerous to be permitted to fly, no matter the level of pre-flight screening or on-flight surveillance and restraint, even though those citizens cannot be legally arrested, detained, or otherwise restricted in their movements or conduct.” See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 19; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
12. Moreover, the Court went on to find that “[i]nclusion on the No Fly List also labels an American citizen a disloyal American who is capable of, and disposed toward committing, war crimes, and one can easily imagine the broad range of consequences that might be visited upon such a person if that stigmatizing designation were known by the general public… The process of nomination to the No Fly List is based on a suspected level of future dangerousness that is not necessarily related to any unlawful conduct.” See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 14, 17; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
6

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 7 of 95 PageID# 368
Nature of the Action 13. This action is necessary to compensate Plaintiffs and all other Americans similarly situated members of the Class for the injuries Defendants inflicted against them. Defendants have violated the constitutionally protected liberty interests of Plaintiffs and members of the Class as a result of being designated on the federal watch list and being falsely stigmatized as “known or suspected” terrorists, and as a result of being denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation on the federal watch list. The reason for not joining all potential class members as Plaintiffs is that, upon information and belief, there are thousands upon thousands of potential plaintiffs making it impractical to bring them before the Court. All Plaintiffs are United States Citizens. None have been charged or convicted of a terrorism-related offense. 14. There are potentially thousands upon thousands of persons who have been similarly affected and the question to be determined is one of common and general interest to many persons constituting the Class to which Plaintiffs belong, and the group is so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the Court, for which reason Plaintiffs initiate this litigation for all American citizens similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 15. Issues and questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over questions affecting individual members and the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class. 16. The maintenance of this litigation as a Class Action will be superior to other methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice.
7

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 8 of 95 PageID# 369
17. Plaintiffs and their attorneys, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Michigan (“CAIR-MI”), The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas, and Akeel and Valentine, PLC, will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class.
Parties 18. Plaintiff Baby Doe is a 4-year-old United States Citizen toddler born to an American Muslim family, residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled. Plaintiff Baby Doe brings this action by and through his next friend, Father Doe. 19. Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 is a 1-year-old United States Citizen toddler born to an American Muslim family, residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled. Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 brings this action by and through his next friend, Father Doe 2. 20. Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura is a 26-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Cook County, Illinois. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled. 21. Plaintiff Anas Elhady is a 22-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
8

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 9 of 95 PageID# 370
22. Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed is a 24-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
23. Plaintiff Gulet Mohamed is a United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Fairfax County, Virginia. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
24. Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel is a 40-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Orange County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
25. Plaintiff Donald Thomas is a 29-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Sacramento County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
26. Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi is a 37-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
27. Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman is a 44-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of
9

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 10 of 95 PageID# 371
the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
28. Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh is a 37-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
29. Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic is a 37-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
30. Plaintiff Mark Amri is a 36-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in San Bernardino County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
31. Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout is a 55-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Jordan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
32. Plaintiff Saleem Ali is a 43-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
10

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 11 of 95 PageID# 372
33. Plaintiff Shahir Anwar is a 36-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
34. Plaintiff Samir Anwar is a 29-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
35. Plaintiff Mariam Jukaku is a 32-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
36. Plaintiff Mohammad Haydar is a 34-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
37. Plaintiff Muhammad Yahya Khan is a 46-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
38. Plaintiff Hassan Fares is a 33-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the
11

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 12 of 95 PageID# 373
events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
39. Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 is a 51-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
40. Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 is a 38-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
41. Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 is a 53-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
42. Plaintiff John Doe No. 4 is a 23-year-old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
43. Defendant Christopher M. Piehota is the current Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Piehota was appointed in April, 2013. Defendant Piehota develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Piehota also oversees the dissemination of
12

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 13 of 95 PageID# 374
the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Piehota is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
44. Defendant Robin C. Burke is the former Acting-Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Burke served as Acting-Director from February, 2013 to April, 2013. Additionally, Defendant Burke served as Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorism Screening Center from November, 2010 to July, 2013. Defendant Burke developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Burke also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Burke is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
45. Defendant Timothy J. Healy is the former Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Healy served as Acting Director of the Terrorist Screening Center from March, 2009 until he was appointed Director on May 14, 2009. Defendant Healy served until February, 2013. Defendant Healy developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Healy
13

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 14 of 95 PageID# 375
also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of seafaring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Healy is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
46. Defendant Steven Mabeus is the current Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Mabeus was appointed in October, 2013. Defendant Mabeus develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Mabeus also oversees the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Mabeus is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
47. Defendant Anne Veysey is the former Acting Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Veysey served from July, 2013 to October, 2013. Defendant Veysey developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Veysey also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other
14

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 15 of 95 PageID# 376
official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Veysey is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
48. Defendant Donald Torrence is the former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Torrence served from December, 2009 to November, 2010. Defendant Torrence developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Torrence also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Torrence is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
49. Defendant Rick Kopel is the former Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Kopel served prior to and through November, 2009. Defendant Rick Kopel developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Rick Kopel also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Rick Kopel is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
15

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 16 of 95 PageID# 377
50. Defendant G. Clayton Grigg is the current Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Grigg began serving in September, 2013. Defendant Grigg developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Grigg also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Grigg is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
51. Defendant Deborah Lubman is the former Acting Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Lubman served intermittently between February, 2013 and September, 2013. Defendant Lubman developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Lubman also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Lubman is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
52. Defendant Cindy Coppola is the former Acting Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Coppola served between June and September, 2011 and intermittently between February, 2013 and September, 2013.
16

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 17 of 95 PageID# 378
Defendant Coppola developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Coppola also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Coppola is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
53. Defendant Cory Nelson is the former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Nelson served prior to and through April, 2009. Defendant Nelson developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Nelson also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Nelson is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
54. Defendant Bryan Lynch is the former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Lynch served from May, 2009 to September, 2009. Defendant Lynch developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list. Defendant Lynch also oversaw
17

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 18 of 95 PageID# 379
the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Lynch is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
55. Defendant James Kennedy is the Director of the Office of Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Defendant Kennedy also serves as the Director of the DHS Traveler Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Defendant Kennedy is responsible for overseeing DHS TRIP, the administrative complaint process to challenge nominations of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class made to the federal watch list, and coordinating with other government agencies, including the Terrorism Screening Center, to resolve the complaint. Defendant Kennedy is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
56. Defendant Matthew G. Olsen is Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (“NCTC”). Defendant Olsen is responsible for Defendant the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class on the federal watch list. Olsen is being sued in his individual capacity, only.
57. Defendants Unidentified FBI Agents are employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and include agents involved in the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class on the federal watch list. The Unidentified FBI Agents are being sued in their individual capacities, only.
58. Defendants Unidentified TSC Agents are employed by the Terrorism Screening Center (“TSC”), and include agents involved in acceptance of the nominations to the federal
18

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 19 of 95 PageID# 380
watch list and the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of seafaring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. The Unidentified TSC Agents are being sued in their individual capacities, only.
59. Defendants Unidentified NCTC Agents are employed by the National Counterterrorism Center (“NCTC”), and include agents involved in the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class on the federal watch list. The Unidentified NCTC Agents are being sued in their individual capacities, only.
60. All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed by and attributable to Defendants, acting as an agent, employee, employer, and/or under the direction and control of the others, except as specifically alleged otherwise. Said acts and failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each Defendant participated in, approved and/or ratified the unlawful acts and omissions by the other Defendants complained of herein. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.
Jurisdiction and Venue 61. Under U.S. Const. Art. III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights sought to be protected herein are secured by the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
19

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 20 of 95 PageID# 381
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 702, 5 U.S.C. § 706, the United States Constitution, and federal common law.
62. This action seeks damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) and 28 U.S.C. § 1357.
63. A substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
64. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to all Defendants because Defendants are officers or employees of agencies of the United States sued in their individual capacities and because this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
Factual Background The Federal Government’s Terrorist Watch List 65. In September, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft established the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”) to consolidate the government’s approach to terrorism screening. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”). TSC’s consolidated watch list is the federal government’s master repository for suspected international and domestic terrorist records used for watch list related screening. 66. The watch list has two primary components: the Selectee List and the No-Fly List. 67. Persons on the Selectee List, including many of Plaintiffs, are systematically subject to extra screening at airports and land border crossings, and often find “SSSS” on
20

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 21 of 95 PageID# 382
their boarding passes printed by airline employees which is marked to indicate a passenger’s watch list status to airline employees and screeners.
68. On the other hand, persons on the No-Fly List, including the remainder of Plaintiffs, are prevented from boarding flights that fly into, out of, or even through United States airspace.
69. TSC disseminates records from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies that in turn use those records to identify suspected terrorists. For example, applicable TSC records are provided to TSA for use by airlines in pre-screening passengers and to CBP for use in screening travelers entering the United States by land.
70. Upon information and belief, Defendants disseminated the records of each of the Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies, including the TSA for use by airlines in pre-screening Plaintiffs, and CBP for use in screening Plaintiffs upon entering the United States.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendants disseminated the records pertaining to each of the Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to foreign governments with the purpose and hope that those foreign governments will constrain the movement of the Plaintiffs in some manner. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ intention in disseminating watch list records, including those of each of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class, as widely as possible is to constrain Plaintiffs’ movements, not only within the United States, but abroad as well. For example, some countries detain individuals listed on the federal watch list who enter their borders, question those individuals at the behest of United States officials, or altogether prevent those individuals from even entering those countries. Thus, while the TSC maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists, it is the front-line agencies like
21

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 22 of 95 PageID# 383
the TSA that carry out the screening function. In the context of air travel, when individuals make airline reservations and check in at airports, the front-line screening agency, like TSA and CBP, conducts a name-based search of the individual, including each of the Plaintiffs, to determine whether he or she is on a watch list.
72. While agencies throughout the federal government utilize the federal watch list to conduct screening, listed persons are subject to a comprehensive portfolio of consequences that cover large aspects of their lives.
73. Indeed, Defendants disseminated the federal watch list to both government authorities and private corporations and individuals with the purpose and hope that these entities and/or individuals will impose consequences on those individuals Defendants have listed, including each of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
74. Upon information and belief, the status of Plaintiffs and members of the Class as known or suspected terrorists on the federal watch list diminishes and even imperils their ability to access the financial system.
75. Banks have closed the bank accounts of individuals listed on the federal watch list, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and financial companies have declined to allow these listed individuals to make wire transfers.
76. Moreover, upon information and belief, the citizenship and green card applications of individuals on the federal watch list are delayed indefinitely due to an “FBI name check” and not adjudicated, thereby denying Plaintiffs and members of the Class of the rights the flow from citizenship, including the ability to travel freely as a United States citizen and to sponsor for lawful permanent residency immediate relatives living abroad.
22

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 23 of 95 PageID# 384
77. Among the entities and individuals that the federal government disseminates its federal watch list are state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among others.
78. In fact, two days after this action was filed, Defendant Piehota, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, gave an exclusive interview to CNN and stated the following, in relevant part:
It's concerning that our partners don't use all of our data. We provide them with tools. We provide them with support, and I would find it concerning that they don't use these tools to help screen for their own aviation security, maritime security, border screening, visas, things like that for travel.1
79. Defendant Piehota went on to state that the United States shares its federal watch list with the European Union, but that European Union countries don't systematically utilize it to identify suspected terrorists or screen migrants coming.
80. Upon information and belief, because the names of Plaintiffs and members of the Class are included on the federal watch list, their names were disseminated to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of seafaring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
81. Because the federal government disseminates its federal watch list to foreign governments, through Defendants, listed persons, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, are often not allowed to enter other nations. This is because the United States is telling other nations, without any modicum of due process, that thousands of its own citizens are “known or suspected terrorists.”
1 First on CNN: Top U.S. intel official: Europe not taking advantage of terror tracking tools, CNN, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/christopher-piehota-us-intel-europe-terror-tracking/
23

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 24 of 95 PageID# 385
82. The federal government, through Defendants, disseminates its federal watch list to state and local police officers, including Plaintiffs, which allows those officers to query the names of persons, if for example, the listed individual is pulled over for routine traffic violations.
83. Disseminating the federal watch list to state and local police officers creates a dangerous situation insofar as the federal watch list effectively directs state and local officers to treat thousands of Americans, including Plaintiffs, charged or convicted with no crime yet listed as a “known or suspected terrorist” and as extremely dangerous.
84. With the advent and deployment of automatic license plate readers by police departments across the country, local and state authorities have relied heavily upon a driver’s watch list status as the basis of a traffic stop, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
85. Being on the federal watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, from purchasing a gun. For example, New Jersey passed a law in 2013 that banned persons on the federal watch list from owning guns. Additionally, Connecticut is in the process of setting up an institutional mechanism to prevent individuals whose names are included on the federal watch list, such as Plaintiffs and members of the Class, from being able to buy a gun in the state of Connecticut.
86. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are unable to purchase guns in states that ban persons on the federal watch list from owning guns.
87. Because the federal government conducts a security risk assessment that includes querying the federal watch list prior to issuing a license to commercial drivers to transport hazardous materials, being on the federal watch list can prevent listed persons,
24

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 25 of 95 PageID# 386
including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, from obtaining or renewing their Hazmat license.
88. Being on the federal watch list can also prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, from accompanying minors or passengers with disabilities to their gate, from working at an airport, or working for an airline insofar as listed persons are not allowed to enter so-called “sterile areas” of airports.
89. Being on the federal watch list can also result in the listing of the false stigmatizing label of “known or suspected” terrorist on the criminal records of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, information that is publicly accessible to the general public.
90. Being on the federal watch list can also result in the denial or revocation of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license of Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
91. Although TSA, CBP, and other agencies may use the records provided by the TSC, it is the TSC that maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists.
92. Two government entities, including the Unidentified FBI Agents and Unidentified TSC Agents employed by those government entities, are primarily responsible for “nominating” individuals for inclusion in the terrorist watch list—the NCTC and the FBI. The NCTC, which is managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, relies on information from other federal departments and agencies when including alleged known or suspected international terrorists in its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (“TIDE”) database. The NCTC reviews TIDE entries and recommends specific entries to the TSC for inclusion in the watch list. TIDE is the main source of all international terrorist information included in the watch list.
25

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 26 of 95 PageID# 387
93. The FBI, including the Unidentified FBI Agents, in turn, nominates to the watch list individuals with what it characterizes as suspected ties to domestic terrorism. TSC, including Defendant Healy and Unidentified TSC Agents, makes the final decision on whether a nominated individual meets the minimum requirements for inclusion into the watch list as a known or suspected terrorist. TSC also decides which screening systems will receive the information about that individual.
94. Defendant Healy has testified that in evaluating whether an individual meets the criteria for inclusion on the consolidated watch list, the TSC determines whether the nominated individual is “reasonably suspected” of having possible links to terrorism. According to the TSC, “reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in and of or related to terrorism and terrorist activities.”
95. Defendants have not stated publicly what standards or criteria are applied to determine whether an American citizen on the consolidated watch list will be placed on the No-Fly List, Selectee List (“SSSS”) or other list that is distributed to the TSA, CBP or other screening agencies.
96. The standards for watch list inclusion do not evince even internal logic. Defendants define a “suspected terrorist” as an “individual who is reasonably suspected to be, or have been, engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism and terrorist activities based on articulable and reasonable suspicion.” In other words, Defendants place American citizens on the federal watch list based upon a “reasonable suspicion” that they are “reasonably suspected” of nefarious activities. This
26

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 27 of 95 PageID# 388
“reasonable suspicion” based on a “reasonable suspicion” standard does not even contain internal logic.
97. The federal government utilizes guilt-by-association as a basis for watch list inclusion, as in the case of several of the Plaintiffs. For example, the immediate relative of listed persons can be listed without any derogatory information—other than the bonds of family. Nonetheless, such designation suggests that the immediate relative is him or herself engaged in nefarious activities.
98. Being a known associate—a friend, colleague, fellow community member, etc.—of a listed individual can also provide a basis for watch list inclusion.
99. Even if an American citizen is acquitted of terrorism charges or those charges are otherwise dismissed, the federal government retains for itself the authority to continue to include them in the watch list.
100. For reasons unknown, Defendants also place what they call “non-investigatory subjects” on the federal watch list, American citizens that they have chosen not to investigate.
101. Under these practices and standards, the number of records in the consolidated watch list has swelled. Over 1.5 million nominations to the watch list have been submitted by federal agencies since fiscal year 2009.
102. In 2013, Defendant TSC accepted 98.96 percent of all nominations made. 103. Because of these loose standards and practices, the federal watch list’s rate of growth has increased. In fiscal 2009, there were 227,932 nominations to the watch list. In fiscal 2013, there were 468,749 nominations. 104. Upon information and belief, in 2001, there were 16 people who the federal government systematically prevented from flying. In 2013, that number increased to 47,000.
27

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 28 of 95 PageID# 389
105. Once an American citizen has been placed on the watch list, the individual remains on the list until the agency that supplied the initial information in support of the nomination determines the individual should be removed.
106. A 2007 GAO report found that TSC rejects only approximately one percent of all nominations to the watch list.2 As such, the watch list is growing at a rate of approximately 20,000 entries per year.
107. At a March 10, 2010 Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Russel E. Travers, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated that “[t]he entire federal government is leaning very far forward on putting people on list,” and that the watch list is “getting bigger, and it will get even bigger.”
108. The federal watch list also disproportionately targets American Muslims. 109. Defendants have utilized the watch list, not as a tool to enhance aviation and border security, but as a bludgeon to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants or forgoing the exercise of their rights, such as the right to have an attorney present during law enforcement questioning. 110. Public examples of this phenomenon abound. See Latif v. Holder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85450, *19 (D. Or. June 24, 2014) (an FBI agent told Steven Washburn that he “would help remove Washburn's name from the No-Fly List if he agreed to speak to the FBI”); Id. at *21-22 (FBI agents told Ibraheim Mashal that “his name would be removed from the No-Fly List and he would receive compensation if he helped the FBI by serving as an informant.”): Id at *22-23 (FBI agents offered Amir Meshal “the opportunity to serve as a
2 See United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters entitled Terrorist Watch List Screening: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Management Oversight, Reduce Vulnerabilities in Agency Screening Processes, and Expand Use of the List, GAO-08-110, October 2007, at 22.
28

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 29 of 95 PageID# 390
government informant in exchange for assistance in removing his name from the No-Fly List.”). See also Fikre v. FBI, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73174 (D. Or. May 29, 2014) (Emirati officials told Yonas Fikre that he “could not travel to the United States by air because he is on the No-Fly List” and an FBI agent told Fikre that “the FBI could take steps to remove [him] from the No-Fly List if he agreed to be an informant.”); Tanveer v. Holder, et. al., No. 13-cv6951, Dkt. 15 (April 22, 2014) (Naveed Shinwari “declined to act as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to spy on [his] own American Muslim communities and other innocent people.”).
111. Additionally, government records show that Dearborn, Michigan—which is 40 percent Arab—is disproportionately represented on the federal watch list. In fact, Dearborn is among the top five cities in the country, alongside Chicago, Houston, New York, and San Diego, represented on the federal watch list.
112. Due to Dearborn’s significant population of Muslims, it has earned a reputation as the “Muslim Capital of America.” In fact, almost all publicly known instances of Americans being placed on the watch list regard Muslims or persons who could be mistaken for Muslims.
113. Defendants’ 2013 Watchlisting Guidance also indicates that “[t]ravel for no known lawful or legitimate purpose to a locus of terrorist activity” can be a basis for being listed. While a “locus of Terrorist Activity” is not defined by the document, upon information and belief, it likely includes any place where many Muslims reside.
114. The federal watch list’s inclusion standards are so permissive and pliable and the selectee list's efficacy is at best fleetingly marginal that the inclusion standards themselves violate Plaintiffs procedural and substantive due process.
29

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 30 of 95 PageID# 391
115. The federal watch list diminishes, rather than enhances, our national security because the number of innocent Americans on the list is becoming so voluminous that the purpose of having a list is significantly undermined as all are being treated as the same.
116. The consequences of being on the federal watch list are meted out publicly. Members of the public can witness the extra screening to which individuals on the federal watch list are subject, including being pulled out of their car at gunpoint, being ordered to leave one's vehicle with one's hands held above his/her head, among other stigmatizing measures.
117. In practice, frontline screeners disclose the status of individuals on the federal watch list to state and local authorities, as well as airline employees.
118. The operation of the federal watch list enlists air carriers to assist the federal government in tracking the passenger on the federal watch list.
119. Defendants apply the federal watch list against Muslim Americans in a manner that is different from how it uses its list against people of other faith backgrounds.
120. Defendants use impermissible and inaccurate religious profiles in compiling the federal watch list.
121. These Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list knowing that their actions violated clearly established federal law.
122. Defendants knew at the time they acted unlawfully that Supreme Court precedent required that, whenever a citizen is deprived of a liberty interest, the federal government must at least provide the deprived with some form of notice that a deprivation occurred.
30

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 31 of 95 PageID# 392
123. Defendants knew at the time they acted unlawfully that whenever a citizen is deprived of a liberty interest, the federal government must provide the deprived with a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism to contest their deprivation.
124. Defendants knew at the time they acted unlawfully that imposing upon Plaintiffs and members of the Class the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, is a violation of their constitutional rights.
125. Defendants knew at the time they acted unlawfully that singling out Plaintiffs and other members of the Class for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals suspected of terrorism, was a violation of their constitutional rights.
The Federal Government’s Terrorist Watch List Is No More Effective Than a List of Randomly Selected Individuals 126. Defendants’ ability to watch list persons, including Plaintiffs, who pose a threat of terrorism can be measured and described using a quantitative analysis based on factual allegations made in this Complaint as well as publicly available information describing the current operation of the federal watch list. 127. Upon information and belief, the federal government has placed approximately one million persons on the federal watch list over the last ten years. 128. Moreover, based on the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, a project funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, there have been less than
31

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 32 of 95 PageID# 393
250 terrorist acts inside the United States over the last decade. These terrorist acts were perpetrated by less than 250 persons.
129. Only one of these perpetrators was designated on the federal watch list by the federal government prior to their criminal conduct. This single person designated on the federal watch list, however, was removed from the federal watch list prior to perpetrating the terrorist attack.
130. Upon information and belief, in order to designate a person on the federal watch list, the federal government must first have information about that person. Because the federal government does not possess information on every person in the world, existing law enforcement and intelligence practices produce a subset of persons who the federal government can then screen against the federal watch list’s inclusion standards.
131. The precise size of this subset is unknown, however a survey of law enforcement and intelligence practices indicates that the size of this subset is greater than 50 million people.
132. Upon information and belief, the practices that produce this subset exclude some persons who do pose a threat of terrorism and include some persons who do not pose a threat of terrorism.
133. Upon further information and belief, the federal government does not screen the entire subset of people known to it. Moreover, Defendants do not make individual determinations as to whether each person about whom they know should be placed on the federal watch list.
134. In order to designate a person on the federal watch list, a federal government official must make a nomination and a TSC official must accept the nomination.
32

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 33 of 95 PageID# 394
135. Upon information and belief, TSC officials accept nominations at a rate above 95 percent.
136. Based on the facts alleged in this Complaint and the publicly known processes of the federal watch list, a quantitative analysis can be constructed to measure and describe the performance of the federal watch list.
137. A quantitative analysis demonstrates that, in order to accomplish the federal watch list’s stated objectives, Defendants must have at least some greater-than-random ability to identify future terrorists. This is due to the nature of the processes Defendants utilize to place persons on the federal watch list and the size of the population Defendants can—if they so choose—screen against the federal watch list’s inclusion standards.
138. A quantitative analysis also demonstrates that Defendants’ watch listing system would perform similarly if inclusion on the watch list was done via random selection instead of the existing inclusion standards Defendants utilize.
139. A quantitative analysis therefore indicates that Defendants have no ability to watch list persons whose placement on the watch list would further Defendants’ stated objectives.
Inadequacy of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program Process 140. The government entities and individuals involved in the creation, maintenance, support, modification and enforcement of the federal watch list, including Defendants, have not provided travelers, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, with a fair and effective mechanism through which they can challenge the TSC’s decision to place them on the terrorist watch list.
33

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 34 of 95 PageID# 395
141. An individual, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, who has been prevented or hindered from travel by being placed on the federal watch list has no clear avenue for redress, because no single government entity is responsible for removing an individual from the list. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, does not accept redress inquiries from the public, nor does it directly provide final disposition letters to individuals on the selectee list, including Plaintiffs on the selectee list and similarly situated members of the Class, who have submitted redress inquiries. The NCTC which manages the TIDE list does not accept redress inquiries from the general public.
142. Individuals who seek redress after having been included in the terrorist watch list must submit an inquiry through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“DHS TRIP”). DHS TRIP provides individuals with a “Redress Control Number.”
143. DHS TRIP is the only redress “process” available to individuals included on the terrorist watch list.
144. DHS TRIP submits traveler complaints to the TSC, which determines whether any action should be taken. The TSC has not provided any publicly available information about how it makes that decision. The TSC is the final arbiter of whether an individual’s name is retained on or removed from the watch list, including those of Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
145. The TSC makes a determination regarding a particular individual’s status on the watch list, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and DHS in turn responds to the individual with a standard form letter that neither confirms nor denies the existence of any terrorist watch list records relating to the individual. The letters do not set forth any basis
34

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 35 of 95 PageID# 396
for inclusion in a terrorist watch list, do not state whether the government has resolved the complaint at issue.
146. The government does not provide an American citizen with any opportunity to confront, or to rebut, the grounds for his or her possible inclusion on the watch list. As such, DHS TRIP offers no meaningful review of the watch list designation and in effect shields the TSC’s actions with respect to the individual nominations or classes of nominations from meaningful review by any independent authority.
147. Moreover, the government’s own internal audits of the system point to serious flaws. For example, a March 2008 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report entitled Audit of the U.S. Department of Justice Terrorism Watchlist Nomination Processes found significant problems with the nomination and removal process.
148. Thus, the only “process” available to such individuals is to submit their names and other identifying information to a government entity that has no authority to provide redress and to hope that an unspecified government agency corrects an error or changes its mind.
149. As alleged below, each of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class are designated on the watch list.
Plaintiff Baby Doe 150. Baby Doe is a 4-year-old toddler. 151. He was seven-months-old when his boarding pass was first stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
35

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 36 of 95 PageID# 397
152. While passing through airport security, he was subjected to extensive searches, pat downs and chemical testing.
153. Every item in his mother’s baby bag was searched, including every one of his diapers.
154. Baby Doe’s mother filed a redress request through DHS TRIP on his behalf. 155. She also filed a Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties of the Transportation Security Administration. 156. At no time was Baby Doe, or his parents, given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he or his parents offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 157. Moreover, at no time was Baby Doe, or his parents, given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 158. Upon information and belief, Baby Doe’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 159. Upon information and belief, because Baby Doe is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 160. Baby Doe 2 is a 1-year-old toddler.
36

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 37 of 95 PageID# 398
161. He was eleven-months-old when his boarding pass was first stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
162. While passing through airport security, he was subjected to extensive searches and pat downs.
163. Baby Doe 2 and his father, whose boarding pass was also stamped with the “SSSS” designation, were detained for hours and questioned regarding the existence of any affiliations with terror groups.
164. At no time was Baby Doe 2, or his parents, given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he or his parents offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
165. Moreover, at no time was Baby Doe 2, or his parents, given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
166. Upon information and belief, Baby Doe 2’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, familial status—based upon his father’s or other family member’s designation—or First Amendment protected activities).
167. Upon information and belief, because Baby Doe 2 is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
37

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 38 of 95 PageID# 399
Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura 168. On September 22, 2012, Mr. Yaseen Kadura was surrounded by eight armed CBP officers, handcuffed and detained in a holding cell for nearly eight hours at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada. 169. CBP officers confiscated his phone and informed Mr. Kadura that his phone was being forwarded to ICE and would be returned to him in 24 to 48 hours. 170. Upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone. 171. On October 22, 2012, Mr. Kadura appeared at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, in order to travel to Libya. 172. Mr. Kadura had previously purchased a plane ticket for a Turkish Airlines flight to Istanbul, and he was to then fly to Libya from Istanbul on Turkish Airlines. Mr. Kadura presented himself at the Turkish Airlines ticket counter hours before his flight. 173. Turkish Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Kadura in for his flight and did not issue him a boarding pass. 174. The Turkish Airlines personnel informed Mr. Kadura that he was on the NoFly List and that he could not board his flight. 175. Before Mr. Kadura was denied the ability to board his flight on October 22, 2012, he did not receive any notice, from a government agency or anyone else, that he would be unable to board his flight or that his name was placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Kadura had been able previously to board flights in the United States without difficulty.
38

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 39 of 95 PageID# 400
176. On or about November 14, 2012, Special Agent Arkin Fout, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, directly contacted Mr. Kadura and harassed and intimidated him in an attempt to coerce him into arranging an “informal meeting” at an undisclosed location without the presence of his attorney.
177. Special Agent Fout proceeded to pressure Mr. Kadura into becoming an informant in Libya.
178. Special Agent Fout indicated that if Mr. Kadura wanted to remove his name from the No-Fly List, it would be nearly impossible for him to do so unless he agreed to work as an informant in Libya.
179. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura’s name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Kadura to act as an informant in Libya.
180. On November 30, 2012, Mr. Kadura filed a complaint through DHS TRIP. 181. On May 8, 2013, Mr. Kadura received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 182. Mr. Kadura filed a timely DHS TRIP appeal on June 5, 2013. 183. Because Mr. Kadura did not received a response to his DHS TRIP appeal, Mr. Kadura filed a federal lawsuit, along with four other Muslim Americans, on August 14, 2014 seeking his removal from the federal watch list or any other database that burdens or prevents him from flying or entering the United States across the border. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 14-cv-13128 (2014)). 184. On September 4, 2015, Mr. Kadura’s attorney received a response to the DHS TRIP appeal that stated “As you requested in connection with Mr. Kadura’s redress inquiry
39

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 40 of 95 PageID# 401
challenging the redress process, DHS TRIP reevaluated Mr. Kadura’s redress inquiry and is now providing a new determination in accordance with the newly enhanced procedures. At this time the U.S. Government knows of no reason Mr. Kadura should be unable to fly.”
185. On January 15, 2016, Mr. Kadura attempted to check in online for his commercial flight to New York, however he was unable to check in.
186. Mr. Kadura appeared later that day at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in order to board his commercial flight to New York.
187. Mr. Kadura was unable to check in at the kiosk stationed at the airport. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after speaking on the phone with a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) representative for nearly an hour, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
188. He was then taken into a special security room by a number of TSA agents for a private security check before he was allowed to board his flight.
189. Upon information and belief, Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Kadura to Western Union or other private entities or individuals, and as a result, he is unable to conduct wire transfers at any Western Union branch.
190. At no time was Mr. Kadura given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
191. Moreover, at no time prior to April, 2015 was Mr. Kadura given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
40

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 41 of 95 PageID# 402
192. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura remains on the federal watch list. 193. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 194. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Kadura is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Anas Elhady 195. Mr. Anas Elhady is routinely referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at land border crossings when he attempts to re-enter the United States from Canada. 196. CBP officers routinely subject him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately four to twelve hours each time. 197. Moreover, he is routinely asked questions about his religious beliefs and practices, what sect of Islam he belongs to, what mosque he prays in, among other things. 198. Moreover, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 199. Mr. Elhady filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 200. On May 11, 2015, Mr. Elhady received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number.
41

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 42 of 95 PageID# 403
201. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Elhady was again referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge Port of Entry in Detroit, Michigan, for approximately six hours when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
202. After the CBP officers confiscated Mr. Elhady’s jacket and shoes, they detained him in a small, freezing cold holding cell with bright lights.
203. After several hours, Mr. Elhady knocked on the door repeatedly and begged for someone to help him. His pleas for help were ignored.
204. Afterwards, his body began shaking uncontrollably and he fell unconscious. 205. CBP officers finally opened the door and woke him up. 206. Mr. Elhady repeatedly begged for an ambulance to take him to the hospital, but his pleas were ignored. 207. Finally, Mr. Elhady was taken to an ambulance, only to be handcuffed to the bed inside the ambulance. 208. Mr. Elhady was taken to a local hospital, where he was handcuffed to a chair in the waiting room of the hospital. 209. After being attended to by nurses and physicians, and prescribed the medication that he needed, Mr. Elhady was again handcuffed to a chair inside a vehicle and transported back to the Ambassador Bridge. 210. On December 2, 2015, FBI Special Agent Josh Allen contacted Mr. Elhady and informed him that his phone was being tapped and that all his calls were being listened to by the FBI.
42

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 43 of 95 PageID# 404
211. Mr. Elhady’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
212. Additionally, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
213. At no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
214. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
215. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady remains on the federal watch list. 216. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 217. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Elhady is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed 218. On or about February or March, 2011, Mr. Osama Ahmed appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, upon returning home on a commercial flight from Yemen.
43

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 44 of 95 PageID# 405
219. Mr. Ahmed was escorted from the gate to an interrogation room and interrogated by FBI agents for approximately six to seven hours.
220. The FBI agents confiscated his USB drive that he had with him, and upon information and belief, downloaded the information from his USB drive.
221. Several days later, FBI agents, including Special Agent Joel Kelso, appeared at Mr. Ahmed’s home.
222. The FBI agents took him to a nearby bd’s Mongolian Grill, and attempted to recruit Mr. Ahmed into becoming an informant in Yemen.
223. The FBI agents tried to entice Mr. Ahmed, who was only 18 years old at the time, into becoming an informant by offering to teach him how to sky dive, among other things.
224. Special Agent Kelso informed Mr. Ahmed that his name was on the No-Fly List, and that if he cooperated, his name would be removed from the list.
225. On April 29, 2011, Mr. Ahmed filed a complaint through DHS TRIP. 226. On May 2, 2011, Mr. Ahmed’s attorney spoke with Special Agent Kelso who informed her at that time that there was no basis to include Mr. Ahmed on the No-Fly List, and that he would make arrangements to remove his name from the federal watch list. 227. On May 10, 2011, Special Agent Kelso informed his attorney that Mr. Ahmed’s name was removed from the No-Fly List. 228. As a result of being added to the No-Fly List, Mr. Ahmed was unable to apply for employment at the airport where his brother was employed at the time until his name was removed from the No-Fly List.
44

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 45 of 95 PageID# 406
229. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed’s name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Ahmed to act as an informant in Yemen.
230. On or about 2015, Mr. Ahmed’s boarding passes are now stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been once again designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
231. At no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
232. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
233. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed remains on the federal watch list. 234. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 235. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Ahmed is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
45

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 46 of 95 PageID# 407
Plaintiff Gulet Mohamed 236. On December 20, 2010, Mr. Gulet Mohamed arrived at the Kuwait International Airport to renew his visa, just as he had done every three months since he arrived in Kuwait. 237. After an abnormally long wait of several hours, Mr. Mohamed contacted his brother in Virginia via email to inform him that the visa process was taking longer than usual. This is the last communication anyone received from Mr. Mohamed for more than a week. 238. While at the airport, two men in civilian clothes approached Mr. Mohamed, handcuffed him, blindfolded him, escorted him to a waiting SUV, and drove him to an undisclosed location approximately fifteen minutes from the airport. 239. During Mr. Mohamed’s abduction, he was repeatedly beaten and subjected to severe torture by his interrogators. Mr. Mohamed’s interrogators struck him in the face with their hands regularly and in Mr. Mohamed’s estimate more than a hundred times. The interrogators whipped his feet and he was forced by his interrogators to stand for prolonged periods of time. At one point, the interrogators threatened to run currents of electricity through Mr. Mohamed’s genitals. In another instance, Mr. Mohamed’s arms were tied to a ceiling beam and left in that position until he lost consciousness. 240. Mr. Mohamed’s interrogators inflicted these beatings, torture, and grave threats onto Mr. Mohamed for more than a week. Mr. Mohamed remained blindfolded and handcuffed most of the time. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed was tortured as a result of his designation on the federal watch list. 241. The subject matter of the interrogators’ questioning—communicated by one interrogator in perfect American English—indicates that Defendants Unknown TSC and/or
46

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 47 of 95 PageID# 408
Unknown FBI Agents not only facilitated Mr. Mohamed’s illegal detention, interrogation, and torture but participated directly. The English speaking interrogator asked Mr. Mohamed detailed questions about his American siblings, referencing non-public facts regarding his family. For example, the interrogator knew the educational attainment of several siblings, their names, and indicated that he was aware that Mr. Mohamed’s father was deceased.
242. Furthermore, Mr. Mohamed was asked questions not about his actions within Kuwait but questions pertaining to individuals such as Anwar Al-Awlaki of particular interest to the United States. It is highly implausible that Kuwaiti officials would ask such questions and torture an American citizen—in light of the dependent relationship Kuwait maintains with the United States—without the knowledge and approval of the United States.
243. On Tuesday, December 28, 2010, Mr. Mohamed’s interrogators transferred him to a deportation facility. In this facility, Mr. Mohamed was placed with individuals awaiting deportation, receiving visits from family, and benefiting from the facility’s reasonable treatment.
244. At this deportation facility, Mr. Mohamed conversed with a prisoner who covertly kept a mobile phone in his cell. Mr. Mohamed asked to use it, because his family still knew neither what happened to him nor his present location. Mr. Mohamed made a call to his family, telling them where he was and what had happened to him. He spoke with and retained an attorney soon after.
245. Kuwaiti officials told members of Mr. Mohamed’s family that they are holding him at the behest of the United States government and are willing to release him since they have no interest in keeping him in custody. Kuwaiti officials attempted to deport Mr. Mohamed but told members of his family that the United States has placed him on the No Fly
47

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 48 of 95 PageID# 409
List which is preventing his deportation. Mr. Mohamed’s placement on the No Fly List was confirmed by the United States in conversations reported in the press.
246. Also on December 28, 2010, FBI agents visited Mr. Mohamed. Once he informed them that he was represented by legal counsel in the United States and did not wish to answer their questions, the FBI agents suggested that they had some control over his detention by telling Mr. Mohamed that they could expeditiously procure his release from detention if Mr. Mohamed spoke to them. The agents told Mr. Mohamed that he would remain in detention indefinitely if he did not speak to them.
247. On or about January 12, 2011, FBI agents again visited Mr. Mohamed. Again, Mr. Mohamed informed the agents that he would not answer their questions without an attorney present. The FBI agents persisted, asking him questions for several hours despite Mr. Mohamed’s repeated entreaties for the interrogation to stop and essentially continuing the interrogation where Mr. Mohamed’s torturers stopped. The FBI agents threatened Mr. Mohamed with future interrogations, criminal charges, and during the interrogation the agents physically intimidated Mr. Mohamed by crowding him and yelling. A Kuwaiti official intervened to calm the FBI agents down and request that the interrogation be brought to an end.
248. On January 16, 2010, at the direction of Kuwaiti officials, Mr. Mohamed’s family purchased a ticket for him back to the United States and delivered that ticket to Kuwaiti officials. When Kuwaiti officials took Mr. Mohamed to the airport on January 16, 2010, however, Mr. Mohamed was not allowed onto the United Airlines flight.
48

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 49 of 95 PageID# 410
249. After Mr. Mohamed commenced a legal action (United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11-cv-00050 (2011)), Defendants allowed Mr. Mohamed to return to the United States on January 21, 2011.
250. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed’s name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Mohamed to act as an informant upon returning to the United States.
251. At no time was Mr. Mohamed given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
252. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Mohamed given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
253. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed remains on the federal watch list. 254. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mohamed’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 255. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Mohamed is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel 256. On or about April, 2016, Mr. Ausama Elhuzayel appeared at the Los Angeles International Airport in order to board his flight to Dominica.
49

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 50 of 95 PageID# 411
257. Mr. Elhuzayel presented himself to check in for his flight when an agent in common clothes (the agency to which he belongs is unknown, however the agent represented himself as a TSA agent) approached him and informed him that he had “bad news” for him and that he “was not going anywhere.”
258. A second armed agent (the agency to which the second agent belongs is also unknown) provided backup as Mr. Elhuzayel was escorted out of the airport to a shuttle to ensure that he left the airport.
259. One of the agents advised Mr. Elhuzayel to file a redress request through DHS TRIP.
260. Mr. Elhuzayel immediately filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 261. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Elhuzayel has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 262. At no time was Mr. Elhuzayel given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 263. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Elhuzayel given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 264. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhuzayel remains on the federal watch list. 265. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhuzayel’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association—based upon his association with Plaintiff Donald Thomas or other individuals—or First Amendment protected activities).
50

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 51 of 95 PageID# 412
266. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Elhuzayel is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Donald Thomas 267. On April 26, 2016, two FBI agents, including FBI Agent Pat, met with Mr. Thomas at a Starbucks. 268. They questioned him about his religious beliefs – specifically, FBI Agent Pat asked Mr. Thomas “[w]hen does Islam promote violence?” and “[w]hat does jihad mean?” 269. The following day, on April 27, 2016, Mr. Donald Thomas appeared at the Sacramento International Airport in order to board his flight to Malaysia. 270. Prior to his flight, Mr. Thomas presented himself at the Delta Airlines ticket counter before his flight. 271. Delta Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Thomas in for his flight. 272. The personnel spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Thomas to board his flight. 273. Suddenly, at least two TSA Agents, one of which was armed and had his hand on his gun ready to shoot, and one Canine Enforcement Officer who was handling a canine, surrounded Mr. Thomas. 274. The Delta Airlines representative informed Mr. Thomas that he was on the No Fly List and would not be permitted to board his flight.
51

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 52 of 95 PageID# 413
275. Mr. Thomas immediately left the airport, and as he was loading his suitcases, two FBI agents approached him, one of which was Agent Pat who had questioned him at Starbucks the day before.
276. Agent Pat advised Mr. Thomas to contact the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as the organization may be able to help him in connection with his status on the No Fly List.
277. Prior to being added to the No Fly List, on at least two flights, Mr. Thomas’ boarding passes were stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
278. Moreover, on or about February 1, 2016, Mr. Thomas was surrounded by at least four to five armed CBP officers and detained for eight to ten hours at the border stop at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, New York, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada.
279. CBP officers confiscated his phone, asked him for his password to access the phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
280. Mr. Thomas filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 281. As of this date, Mr. Thomas has not received a final response from DHS. 282. At no time was Mr. Thomas given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 283. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Thomas given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
52

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 53 of 95 PageID# 414
284. Upon information and belief, Mr. Thomas’ nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association—based upon his association with Plaintiff Ausama Alhuzayel or other individuals—or First Amendment protected activities).
285. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Thomas is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi 286. Every time Mr. Ahmad Al Halabi travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 287. Moreover, Mr. Al Halabi is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours. 288. Moreover, Mr. Al Halabi has missed his flights and incurred additional expenses on multiple occasions after having been subjected to prolonged searches and interrogations. 289. On June 25, 2014, Mr. Al Halabi was surrounded by armed CBP officers, handcuffed in front of his children and detained in a freezing cold holding cell for approximately two to three hours and in the waiting area for another three to four hours at the Ambassador Bridge port of entry in Detroit, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
53

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 54 of 95 PageID# 415
290. CBP officers confiscated his phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
291. Mr. Al Halabi no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land unless absolutely necessary for business purposes in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
292. Mr. Al Halabi filed multiple redress requests through DHS TRIP. 293. Mr. Al Halabi received multiple letters as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned multiple Redress Control Numbers. 294. At no time was Mr. Al Halabi given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 295. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Al Halabi given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 296. Mr. Al Halabi’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air. 297. Additionally, every time Mr. Al Halabi travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 298. Upon information and belief, Mr. Al Halabi remains on the federal watch list. 299. Upon information and belief, Mr. Al Halabi’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).
54

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 55 of 95 PageID# 416
300. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Al Halabi is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman 301. On or about May 2, 2015, Mr. Michael Edmund Coleman appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, in order to board a commercial flight for his trip to Doha International Airport. 302. Mr. Coleman was unable to check in online or at a kiosk stationed at the airport. 303. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after an airline representative spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance before Mr. Coleman could fly, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 304. During Mr. Coleman’s flight connection at the Philadelphia International Airport, Mr. Coleman was unable to board his next flight until he was once again “cleared” by DHS to board the flight. 305. Mr. Coleman filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 306. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Coleman has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 307. Mr. Coleman’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air.
55

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 56 of 95 PageID# 417
308. Additionally, every time Mr. Coleman travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches, questioning and chemical testing.
309. Mr. Coleman is frequently interrogated about his religious activities during secondary inspections.
310. At no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
311. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
312. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman remains on the federal watch list. 313. Mr. Coleman limits travels by air and by land to Canada when necessary in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 314. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 315. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Coleman is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Dr. Wael Hakmeh 316. On or about April, 2014, Dr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at Chicago O’Hare International Airport upon returning on a flight from a business trip in Turkey.
56

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 57 of 95 PageID# 418
317. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation.
318. Additionally, to the best of his recollection, in June, 2014, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation for the first time, indicating that he was designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
319. On or about October, 2014, Dr. Hakmeh appeared to have been removed from the watch list, as his boarding pass for his flight was not stamped with the “SSSS” designation.
320. However, in January, 2016, Dr. Hakmeh’s boarding pass was again stamped with the “SSSS” designation.
321. On or about June, 2016, Dr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at San Diego International Airport to return home after taking a medical course in San Diego.
322. Before passing through the TSA security checkpoint, Dr. Hakmeh expressed medical and privacy concerns regarding the full-body millimeter wave scanner and requested to be screened by a metal detector instead.
323. TSA agents informed Dr. Hakmeh that he was required to be screened by both the full-body millimeter scanner and metal detector in accordance with security protocol. As a result, he complied.
324. Nonetheless, despite having already been screened by both the full-body millimeter scanner and metal detector, a San Diego police officer approached Dr. Hakmeh after he passed through security, and in the midst of an inspection of each of the items he was carrying, and threatened to charge Dr. Hakmeh with a misdemeanor and arrest him for refusing to pass through the full-body millimeter scanner.
57

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 58 of 95 PageID# 419
325. At no time was Dr. Hakmeh given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
326. Moreover, at no time was Dr. Hakmeh given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
327. Upon information and belief, Dr. Hakmeh remains on the federal watch list. 328. Dr. Hakmeh no longer connects through Chicago O’Hare International Airport to Detroit Metropolitan Airport when returning home to Michigan from overseas travel. Rather, Dr. Hakmeh drives from Chicago O’Hare International Airport for approximately five hours to his home in Wayne County, Michigan each time in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment at multiple airports and risk arriving late to his place of employment. 329. Upon information and belief, Dr. Hakmeh’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).Upon information and belief, because Mr. Hakmeh is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic 330. On or about October, 2012, Mr. Murat Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
58

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 59 of 95 PageID# 420
331. CBP officers subjected him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately three to four hours.
332. Similarly, on or about August, 2014, Mr. Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Montenegro.
333. Moreover, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, since approximately March or April, 2012, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
334. Mr. Frljuckic filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 335. On October 13, 2014, received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 336. Mr. Frljuckic’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air. 337. Additionally, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 338. At no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 339. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 340. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic remains on the federal watch list.
59

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 60 of 95 PageID# 421
341. Mr. Frljuckic no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
342. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).
343. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Frljuckic is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Mark Amri 344. On January 21, 2016, Mr. Mark Amri appeared at the Ontario International Airport in Ontario, California in order to board his flight to Las Vegas, Nevada. 345. Prior to his flight, Mr. Amri presented himself at the Southwest Airlines ticket counter before his flight. 346. Southwest Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Amri in for his flight. 347. The personnel spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Amri to board his flight. 348. Mr. Amri overhead the personnel describe him on the phone, stating that “he looks ok.” 349. The Southwest Airlines representative informed Mr. Amri that he was on the No Fly List and would not be permitted to board his flight. 350. Mr. Amri filed a redress request through DHS TRIP.
60

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 61 of 95 PageID# 422
351. On July 19, 2016, Mr. Amri received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number.
352. On August 4, 2016, Mr. Amri again appeared at the Ontario International Airport in Ontario, California in order to board his flight to San Francisco, California.
353. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after the airline personnel spoke on the phone multiple times with DHS representatives to obtain clearance before he could fly, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he was still designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
354. At no time was Mr. Amri given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
355. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Amri given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
356. Upon information and belief, Mr. Amri’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).
357. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Amri is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
61

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 62 of 95 PageID# 423
Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout 358. Every time Mr. Adnan Shaout travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 359. Mr. Shaout is frequently interrogated about his religious beliefs and affiliation with religious groups during secondary inspections. 360. Moreover, Mr. Shaout is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours. 361. Moreover, TSA agents often confiscate his laptop, and upon information and belief, download information from his laptop. 362. On or about, June 23, 2011, while Mr. Shaout was sitting in the plane waiting for take-off, despite having been thoroughly screened by TSA, TSA agents removed Mr. Shaout from the plane and conducted another extensive pat down and search of his personal belongings. 363. The entire flight was delayed until the TSA agents completed this search. 364. Mr. Shaout no longer travels by air in the United States in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 365. Mr. Shaout filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 366. On November 5, 2015, Mr. Shaout received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 367. Mr. Shaout’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
62

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 63 of 95 PageID# 424
368. Additionally, every time Mr. Shaout travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
369. At no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
370. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
371. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout remains on the federal watch list. 372. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 373. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Shaout is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Saleem Ali 374. On or about October, 2015, Mr. Saleem Ali was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada. 375. CBP officers confiscated his two phones, asked him for his passwords to access the two phones, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phones.
63

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 64 of 95 PageID# 425
376. CBP officers kept his phones and did not return them until the following day. 377. Moreover, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 378. Additionally, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 379. Mr. Ali filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 380. Mr. Ali received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 381. At no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 382. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 383. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali remains on the federal watch list. 384. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 385. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Ali is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
64

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 65 of 95 PageID# 426
Plaintiff Shahir Anwar 386. Mr. Shahir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Samir Anwar. 387. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, since 2014, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 388. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 389. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 390. On March 23, 2015, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 391. Mr. Anwar’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air. 392. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 393. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 394. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal watch list. 395. Mr. Anwar no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment or the treatment experienced by his brother, Plaintiff Samir Anwar, described below. 396. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity,
65

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 66 of 95 PageID# 427
national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, familial status—based upon his brother’s or other family member’s designation—or First Amendment protected activities).
397. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Anwar is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Samir Anwar 398. Mr. Samir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Shahir Anwar. 399. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 400. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 401. On August 7, 2014, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 402. On or about February 22, 2015, Mr. Anwar was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada. 403. Mr. Anwar handed a CBP officer the letter from DHS, however the CBP officer responded that the letter does not mean anything and does not have any impact on the situation.
66

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 67 of 95 PageID# 428
404. CBP officers confiscated his phone, asked him for his password to access the phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
405. Moreover, Mr. Anwar was interrogated about his religious beliefs and religious affiliations.
406. Mr. Anwar’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
407. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
408. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
409. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
410. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal watch list. 411. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, familial status—based upon his brother’s or other family member’s designation—or First Amendment protected activities). 412. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Anwar is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to
67

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 68 of 95 PageID# 429
state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Mariam Jukaku 413. On or about March 21, 2012, Ms. Mariam Jukaku appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport in order to board a commercial flight to California. 414. Ms. Jukaku was unable to check in online. 415. She approached an airline representative to be checked in manually. 416. Her boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that she had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 417. While passing through security, she was subjected to extensive searches, pat downs and chemical testing. 418. Ms. Jukaku filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 419. Ms. Jukaku also filed a Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties of the Transportation Security Administration. 420. Ms. Jukaku received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 421. At no time was Ms. Jukaku given notice of the factual basis for her placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was she offered a meaningful opportunity to contest her designation. 422. Moreover, at no time was Ms. Jukaku given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 423. Upon information and belief, Ms. Jukaku is no longer designated on the federal watch list.
68

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 69 of 95 PageID# 430
424. Upon information and belief, Ms. Jukaku’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon her race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
425. Upon information and belief, because Ms. Jukaku is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Muhamad Haydar 426. On or about June 23, 2012, Mr. Muhamad Haydar appeared at the MBS International Airport in Freeland, Michigan, in order to board a commercial flight to Calgary International Airport in Alberta, Canada. 427. Mr. Haydar was unable to check in at a kiosk stationed at the airport. 428. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after speaking on the phone with a DHS representative for over two hours, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 429. During Mr. Haydar’s flight connection at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Mr. Haydar was unable to board his next flight until he was once again “cleared” by DHS to board the flight. 430. Mr. Haydar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 431. On June 10, 2013, Mr. Haydar received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number.
69

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 70 of 95 PageID# 431
432. At no time was Mr. Haydar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
433. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Haydar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
434. Upon information and belief, Mr. Haydar is no longer designated on the federal watch list.
435. Moreover, as of this date, Mr. Haydar is a member of the DHS Trusted Traveler Program.
436. Upon information and belief, Mr. Haydar’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).
437. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Haydar is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Muhammad Yahya Khan 438. Every time Mr. Muhammad Yahya Khan travels by air, since approximately 2012, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 439. Additionally, every time Mr. Khan travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
70

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 71 of 95 PageID# 432
440. Moreover, every time Mr. Khan returns to the United States on an international flight, CBP officers escort Mr. Khan from the gate, detain him, search his belongings and interrogate him.
441. As a result, Mr. Khan has missed at least two connecting flights. 442. On or about December, 2013, Mr. Khan was interrogated in his home by FBI agents about his religious practices and beliefs, including the mosque he attends, whether he is a regular attendee at his mosque, whether his mosque preaches extremism, and whether he knows anyone affiliated with the Taliban. 443. Upon requesting their business cards, the FBI agents refused to provide Mr. Khan their business cards. 444. In 2012, Mr. Khan was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge, Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to reenter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada. 445. Mr. Khan no longer travels by land into the United States in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 446. Mr. Khan filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 447. On July 14, 2015, Mr. Khan received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 448. Mr. Khan’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 449. Additionally, every time Mr. Khan travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
71

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 72 of 95 PageID# 433
450. At no time was Mr. Khan given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
451. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Khan given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
452. Upon information and belief, Mr. Khan remains on the federal watch list. 453. Upon information and belief, Mr. Khan’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 454. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Khan is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Mr. Hassan Fares 455. On August 2, 2016, Mr. Fares’ boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation for the first time, indicating that he was still designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 456. After boarding his flight, a TSA agent removed Mr. Fares from the plane and required him to pass through airport security once again, although he had already underwent screening to get to his gate. 457. He was subjected to extensive searches and pat downs. 458. By the time Mr. Fares returned to the gate, he missed his flight.
72

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 73 of 95 PageID# 434
459. At no time was Mr. Fares given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
460. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Fares given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
461. Upon information and belief, Mr. Fares remains on the federal watch list. 462. Upon information and belief, Mr. Fares’ nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 463. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Fares is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 464. On or about January, 2015, Mr. John Doe No. 1’s boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 465. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 1 returns to the United States from international travel, Mr. Doe is subjected to prolonged detention and questioning. 466. Suddenly, shortly after Mr. Doe No. 1 was designated on the federal watch list, many of his individual and business bank accounts were closed without notice or an
73

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 74 of 95 PageID# 435
explanation of the reasons why they were being closed, including bank accounts at JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank.
467. Upon information and belief, Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Doe No. 1 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank, or other private entities or individuals, and as a result, his bank accounts were closed without notice.
468. Mr. Doe No. 1 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 469. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 1 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 470. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 471. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 472. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 1 remains on the federal watch list. 473. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 1’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 474. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 1 is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
74

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 75 of 95 PageID# 436
Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 475. On or about May, 2010, Mr. John Doe No. 2 appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport upon returning on a flight from a trip to Turkey. 476. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation. 477. During his interrogation, CBP officers began looking through pictures on Mr. Doe No. 2’s laptop and asked him questions about his place of worship, the religious leader at his mosque, whether Mr. Doe No. 2 knew anyone who was involved in terrorist activities, and whether he had information about other congregants at his place of worship. 478. Every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, since his May, 2010 trip, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 479. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 480. Mr. Doe No. 2 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 481. On January 19, 2016, Mr. Doe No. 2 received a letter as described in paragraph 145 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 482. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 483. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
75

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 76 of 95 PageID# 437
484. As of the date of this filing, it is unclear whether Mr. Doe No. 2 remains on the federal watch list.
485. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 2’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).
486. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 2 is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 487. Every time Mr. John Doe No. 3 travels by air, since 2002, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 488. In fact, in 2002, upon returning from an international flight, Mr. Doe No. 3 was escorted off of the plane by FBI agents, before he was interrogated and threatened by agents from different government agencies. 489. Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that can take hours. 490. Moreover, Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently called over the loud speakers at the airport after he has already reached the gate prior to take off to go back to security, only to be detained and subjected to further prolonged interrogations and searches.
76

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 77 of 95 PageID# 438
491. Additionally, TSA agents confiscated his phones, requested his passwords, and upon information and belief, downloaded information from them.
492. On July 14, 2016, Mr. Doe No. 3 was surrounded by several armed CBP officers, handcuffed and detained for several hours at the border stop at the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada.
493. He was informed during that detention that he was surrounded by several armed CBP officers because he was flagged in their system as “armed and dangerous.”
494. On or about 2006, Mr. Doe No. 3’s JPMorgan Chase Bank was suddenly closed a few days after he opened it without notice or an explanation of the reasons why it was being closed.
495. Upon information and belief, Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Doe No. 3 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, or other private entities or individuals, and as a result, his bank account was closed without notice.
496. Mr. Doe No. 3 lost lucrative employment opportunities as a result of being designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
497. Mr. Doe No. 3 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 498. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 3 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 499. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
77

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 78 of 95 PageID# 439
500. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
501. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3 remains on the federal watch list. 502. Mr. Doe No. 3 limits travels by air when necessary in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 503. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities). 504. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 3 is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff John Doe No. 4 505. On August 1, 2016, Mr. Doe No. 4 arrived at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport in order to board his flight to Morocco. 506. Prior to his flight, Mr. Doe No. 4 presented himself at the Delta Airlines ticket counter before his flight. 507. Delta Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Doe No. 4 in for his flight. 508. The personnel spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Doe No. 4 to board his flight. 509. The personnel, along with a Delta Airlines supervisor spoke with two men dressed in suits, who upon information and belief were FBI agents.
78

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 79 of 95 PageID# 440
510. The Delta Airlines supervisor returned to the counter and informed Mr. Doe No. 4 that he was on the No Fly List and would not be permitted to board his flight.
511. Before Mr. Doe No. 4 was denied the ability to board his flight, he did not receive any notice, from a government agency or anyone else, that he would be unable to board his flight or that his name was placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Doe No. 4 had been able previously to board flights in the United States without difficulty.
512. On or about August 24, 2015, Mr. Doe No. 4 was involved in a minor car accident in Clinton Township, Michigan.
513. As he was providing his witness statement to the local police officer, the officer pulled up Mr. Doe No. 4’s profile on his computer screen.
514. Mr. Doe No. 4 saw next to his name at the top of the officer’s computer screen a warning in large, red block letters “Possible Terrorist,” and a note to exercise caution.
515. On at least two separate occasions, while being pulled over for traffic stops, the police officers approached Mr. Doe No. 4 vehicle with their hand on their gun ready to shoot, as though they had information that Mr. Doe No. 4 was armed and extremely dangerous.
516. Upon information belief, Defendants, including Unidentified TSC Agents, disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Doe No. 4 to the police officers, and as a result, after running his license plate on an automatic license plate reader, they treated Mr. Doe No. 4 as armed and extremely dangerous.
517. On or about December 12, 2014, after having been pulled over while driving for a minor traffic violation by a local police officer in Warren, Michigan, the police officer conducted a search of Mr. Doe No. 4’s vehicle.
79

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 80 of 95 PageID# 441
518. Upon finding a broken Airsoft gun with an orange tip, the police officer immediately handcuffed Mr. Doe No. 4 and transported him to the local jail, where he was detained in a holding cell overnight.
519. While he was in his holding cell, he overheard police officers discussing his arrest, when one of the officers said that if he were the officer that had pulled him over, he would have shot and killed him.
520. Later that night, while Mr. Doe No. 4 was being fingerprinted, he saw paperwork in connection with his case next to him on the counter that contained the text “FBI Hold” and “no phone.”
521. The officer taking Mr. Doe No. 4’s fingerprints told Mr. Doe No. 4 that he must have “done something really bad to get the FBI involved,” and that he “thinks something is going down.”
522. Mr. Doe No. 4 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 523. As of this date, Mr. Doe No. 4 has not received a response from DHS. 524. Nonetheless, Mr. Doe No. 4 remains on the No Fly List. 525. Mr. Doe No. 4 is planning on traveling to Morocco for his engagement party as he is planning on becoming engaged to his fiancée. 526. However, Mr. Doe No. 4 is unable to travel to Morocco as a result of his placement on the No Fly List. 527. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 4 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
80

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 81 of 95 PageID# 442
528. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 4 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
529. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 4’s nomination to and designation on the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt-by-association, or First Amendment protected activities).
530. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 4 is included on the federal watch list, Defendants disseminated his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities (including the local police officers above), foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Class Action Allegations 531. Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of:
a. All American citizens who are currently placed on the No Fly List component of the federal watch list, whose names were added prior to April, 2015;
b. All American citizens who are currently placed on the Selectee List component of the federal watch list;
c. All American citizens who were placed on the No Fly List component of the federal watch list prior to April, 2015, who are no longer placed on the federal watch list, and who fall within the applicable statute of limitations;
81

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 82 of 95 PageID# 443
d. All American citizens who were placed on the Selectee List component of the federal watch list, who are no longer placed on the federal watch list, and who fall within the applicable statute of limitations;
e. All American citizen minors who were placed on the federal watch list while they were under the age of ten at the time of the placement;
f. Excluded from the Class are all persons who were placed on the No Fly List component of the federal watch list after April, 2015; and,
g. Excluded from the Class are all persons who are currently placed on the federal watch list who have been charged or convicted of a terrorismrelated offense.
532. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown at the present time, it is estimated that there are thousands upon thousands of members in the Class.
533. Despite the numerical size of the Class, the identities of the Class members can be ascertained through Defendants’ records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of this action as a class action.
534. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously prosecute this action and have retained competent counsel experienced in class action litigation. Plaintiffs are Class members and have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with other Class members. Plaintiffs are represented by lawyers who have had experience in prosecuting class actions and complex civil rights and constitutional matters, and will adequately represent the purported Class in this action.
82

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 83 of 95 PageID# 444
535. Additionally, one of the lawyers, Gadeir Abbas, Esq., has obtained a security clearance which allows him to handle and utilize Sensitive Security Information designated as such by the federal government and which he obtained in furtherance of federal watch list litigation before this court.
536. This action raises numerous questions of law and fact which are common to the Class members, including:
a. Whether Defendants’ actions violated constitutionally protected liberty interests by placing American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list and denying them notice of their inclusion on the federal watch list, even after Defendants imposed the deprivation;
b. Whether Defendants’ actions violated the liberty interest of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class in traveling free from unreasonable burdens within, to, and from the United States, through land border crossings and over U.S. air space;
c. Whether Defendants’ actions violated the right of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class to be free from false government stigmatization as individuals who are “known or suspected to be” terrorists, or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity, when such harm arises in conjunction with the deprivation of their right to travel on the same terms as other travelers and/or the deprivation of their liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment in travel free from unreasonable burdens that are not narrowly tailored;
83

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 84 of 95 PageID# 445
d. Whether Defendants’ actions violated the liberty interest of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class in nonattainder (ie: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial). Defendants’ actions have singled out Plaintiffs and members of the Class for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals connected to terrorism;
e. Whether Defendants’ actions violated the rights of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class by being denied a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism that affords any notice at all of their inclusion on the federal watch list;
f. Whether Defendants’ actions violated the rights of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class to be free from false stigmatization when they disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals;
g. Whether Defendants’ actions violated the right of American citizens like Plaintiffs and members of the Class not to be treated as second-class citizens;
h. Whether Defendants’ watch list lacks a compelling interest or a legitimate or public purpose insofar as their true purpose is to provide law
84

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 85 of 95 PageID# 446
enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants; i. Whether Defendants’ watch list is not narrowly tailored insofar as the federal watch list is entirely and demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist; j. Whether Defendants’ dissemination of the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals is arbitrary and capricious, shocks the conscience, violates the decencies of civilized conduct and is so brutal and offensive that it does not comport with the traditional ideas of fair play and decency; k. Whether Defendants’ placement of Plaintiffs and members of the Class is narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest; l. Whether Defendants have violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class by denying them due process of law; m. Whether Defendants actions have had a discriminatory effect upon and have disparately impacted Muslim American travelers, and not travelers of other faiths; n. Whether Defendants’ above-described actions were motivated by Plaintiffs’ religious status and on the basis of Plaintiffs’ constitutionallyprotected free exercise of religion; o. Whether the Class is entitled to damages;
85

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 86 of 95 PageID# 447
p. Whether Defendants’ who contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and members of the Class are liable; and,
q. The per se damages amount that each Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to for being inflicted with the same injury: inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database.
537. The claims or defenses of the represented parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the Class. Plaintiffs have the same interests as other Class members in prosecuting the claims against the Defendants. Plaintiffs and all the members of the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
538. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Common issues predominate. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigations make it extraordinarily difficult for Class members to redress the wrongs done to them individually.
COUNT I FAILURE TO PROVIDE POST-DEPRIVATION NOTICE AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
539. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 540. Each of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class learned that he or she was placed on the federal watch list subsequent to being added on the federal watch list and sought to challenge such placement. 541. Defendants’ actions as described above in refusing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Class with any notice at all of their placement deprived Plaintiffs and other members of the Class of constitutionally protected liberty interests.
86

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 87 of 95 PageID# 448
542. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and members of the Class to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3).
543. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have a liberty interest in traveling free from unreasonable burdens that are not reasonably tailored within, to, and from the United States, through land border crossings and over U.S. air space.
544. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have a right to be free from false government stigmatization as individuals who are “known or suspected to be” terrorists, or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity, when such harm arises in conjunction with the additional consequences that follow from being listed as well as the deprivation of their right to travel on the same terms as other travelers and/or the deprivation of their liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment in travel free from unreasonable burdens.
545. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have a liberty interest in nonattainder (i.e.: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial). Defendants’ actions have singled out Plaintiffs and other members of the Class for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals suspected of terrorism.
546. Plaintiffs and members of the Class, having been burdened or prevented from boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, having had their bank accounts closed, having been prevented from making wire transfers at financial institutions, having had their citizenship applications delayed indefinitely due to an
87

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 88 of 95 PageID# 449
“FBI name check,” having lost lucrative economic opportunities and suffering from other forms of financial harm, and having sought to challenge their placement on the federal watch list, are entitled to a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal watch list and a meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal watch list. Defendants have even failed to provide the most basic ingredient of due process, which is notice that the government has deprived a person of their protected rights.
547. Moreover, Defendants have officially imposed on Plaintiffs and members of the Class the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism.
548. Further, Defendants disseminated the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and members of the Class of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of seafaring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
549. By imposing on Plaintiffs and members of the Class the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” and by failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Class with a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of their protected liberty interests, including but not limited to their liberty interests in traveling, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder, and thus violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class without affording them due process of law and will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other members of the Class are not afforded the relief demanded below.
88

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 89 of 95 PageID# 450
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members, respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven, a trial by jury, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT II DEPRIVATION OF PROTECTED LIBERTIES IN VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
550. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 551. Because Plaintiffs and other members of the Class were listed by Defendants in a manner not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, Defendants’ actions as described above in including Plaintiffs and other members of the Class on a watch list that unreasonably burdens or prevents them from boarding commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, are arbitrary and capricious, lack even a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, and have unduly deprived Plaintiffs of constitutionally protected rights, including their liberty interests in travel, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder. 552. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and members of the Class to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3). 553. By placing Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list, Defendants have placed an undue burden on their fundamental right of movement.
89

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 90 of 95 PageID# 451
554. By placing Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list, Defendants have treated Plaintiffs and members of the Class like second-class citizens.
555. Defendants’ watch list lacks a compelling interest insofar as their true purpose is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants.
556. Defendants’ watch list are also not narrowly tailored insofar as the federal watch list are entirely and demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist.
557. Defendants’ actions in placing Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and members of the Class the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, are arbitrary and capricious, shock the conscience, violate the decencies of civilized conduct and are so brutal and offensive that they do not comport with the traditional ideas of fair play and decency.
558. Because Plaintiffs and members of the Class have not been charged with any crimes and are United States Citizens, Plaintiffs challenge their placement and the placement of members of the Class on the federal watch list on a broad, as-applied basis.
559. Plaintiffs’ substantive due process challenge is also facial, as there are no circumstances where their placement or the placement of members of the Class on the federal watch list is narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest.
560. Defendants have thus violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of members of the Class without affording them due process of law and
90

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 91 of 95 PageID# 452
will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and members of the Class are not afforded the relief demanded below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members, respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven, a trial by jury, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT III VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Non-Delegation) 561. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 562. Congress has not provided the Executive Branch with intelligible principles from which the Executive can implement its watch list schemes regarding civil aviation and national security. 563. The Executive Branch’s assignment of the watch listing function to TSC violates Congress’ directive that TSA determine who belongs on federal watch lists and the consequences that flow from being on those lists. 564. Congress has not delegated to TSA the authority to create a process that can culminate in the removal of individuals from the TSDB. 565. In the alternative, Congress’s delegation to TSA to create a redress process is defective because the Executive Branch has allocated watch list authority in a manner that prevents TSA from creating a redress process. 566. As a result, Defendants have illegally acted beyond their authority.
91

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 92 of 95 PageID# 453
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members, respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven, a trial by jury, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
(Equal Protection) 567. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 568. Defendants’ actions in placing Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism are discriminatory and constitute an action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment. 569. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and members of the Class to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3).
92

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 93 of 95 PageID# 454
570. By placing Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the federal watch list, Defendants have treated Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens like second-class citizens.
571. Defendants’ above-described actions were motivated by the religious status of Plaintiffs and members of the Class and on the basis of the constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens.
572. Defendants’ above-described actions have had a discriminatory effect upon and have disparately impacted Plaintiffs and members of the Class who are Muslim American travelers, and not travelers of other faiths.
573. Defendants’ above-described actions, policies, course of conduct, or pattern of practice that mandate or permit the above-described treatment of Plaintiffs and members of the Class does not serve a compelling state interest or a legitimate or public purpose, nor are they the least restrictive means or narrowly tailored to achieve any such interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class members, respectfully demand that the Class be certified, that judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven, a trial by jury, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:
1. The Class be certified;
93

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 94 of 95 PageID# 455
2. That judgment be entered against Defendants for such amounts as will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Class for their compensatory damages as may be proven;
3. A trial by jury; 4. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412; and, 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND NOW COME Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of members of the Class, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand trial by jury of the above-referenced causes of action.
Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF GADEIR ABBAS BY: /s/ Gadeir Abbas GADEIR I. ABBAS Attorney for Plaintiffs 1155 F Street NW, Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (720) 251-0425 Fax: (720) 251-0425 Email: gadeir.abbas@gmail.com Licensed in Virginia, not in D.C. Practice limited to federal matters
94

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 17 Filed 08/09/16 Page 95 of 95 PageID# 456

Dated: August 9, 2016

COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, MICHIGAN BY: /s/ Lena Masri LENA F. MASRI (P73461) Attorney for Plaintiffs Legal Director 30201 Orchard Lake Rd., Suite 260 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Phone: (248) 559-2247 AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLLC BY: /s/ Shereef Akeel SHEREEF H. AKEEL (P54345) Attorney for Plaintiffs 888 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 910 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 269-9595 shereef@akeelvalentine.com

95

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 49 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1356

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

BABY DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:16cv373 (JCC/MSN) ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The

Supreme Court having granted certiorari in Turkmen v. Hasty, 789

F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Ashcroft v.

Turkmen, 2016 WL 2653655 (U.S. Oct. 11, 2016) (No. 15-1359), and

it appearing that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Turkmen may

bear on the disposition of this case, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1) this case be STAYED pending the Supreme Court’s

decision in Turkmen;

2) the parties appear for a status conference at 10:00

a.m. on Thursday, April 20, 2017;

3) within fourteen days of the Supreme Court’s

decision in Turkmen, the parties submit a joint status report

apprising the Court of whether they intend to stand on their

filings with respect to the pending Motions to Dismiss and for

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 49 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 1357

Summary Judgment, submit supplemental briefs, or submit entirely

new briefs; and

4) the Clerk of Court strike this case from the roll

of active cases and remove all pending hearings in this case

from the Court’s docket.

It is so ORDERED.

November 1, 2016 Alexandria, Virginia

/s/ James C. Cacheris UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 56 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1370

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

BABY DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:16cv373 (JCC/MSN) ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R

This matter having come before the Court on the status

conference set by the Court’s previous Order [Dkt. 49] staying

this case, it is hereby ORDERED that

1)

The stay on this case is hereby LIFTED and

the Clerk of the Court shall return this case to the roll of

active cases;

2)

The parties shall, within fourteen (14) days

of the entry of this Order, file supplemental briefs addressing

the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ziglar v.

Abbasi, No. 15-1358, 2017 WL 2621317 (U.S. June 19, 2017) on

Plaintiffs’ claims; and

3)

Oral argument regarding the parties’

supplemental briefs is tentatively scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on

August 17, 2017.

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 56 Filed 06/29/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 1371

It is so ORDERED

June 29, 2017 Alexandria, Virginia

/s/ James C. Cacheris UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 66 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 1396

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

BABY DOE, eta/. Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, et al
Defendants.

CaseNo.l:16-CV-00373
Hon. James C. Cacheris

IOINT STIPULATED DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREIUDICE
WHEREAS, the parties to the above-entitled action wish to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the parties and/or their respective counsel that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) (A)(ii), the claims against Defendants are hereby dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without costs or attorneys'
fees.

So Ordered:
M
James C. Cacheris
United States District Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 66 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 1397

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 66 Filed 09/14/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 1398

Case 1:16-cv-00373-JCC-MSN Document 66 Filed 09/14/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 1399

 
 Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 1 of 14
CLOSED,JURY
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia − (Alexandria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16−cv−00373−JCC−MSN

Doe et al v. Piehota et al Assigned to: District Judge James C. Cacheris Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Date Terminated: 09/14/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Baby Doe by his next friend, Father Doe

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas 1155 F St NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 720−251−0425 Fax: 202−204−0253 Email: gadeir@abbaslawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anas Elhady

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gulet Mohamed

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 2 of 14

Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Saleem Ali

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shahir Anwar

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Samir Anwar

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mariam Jukaku

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Muhamad Haydar

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Doe No. 1

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Doe No. 2

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 3 of 14

Plaintiff John Doe No. 3
Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 by his next friend, Father Doe 2
Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel
Plaintiff Donald Thomas
Plaintiff Mark Amri
Plaintiff Muhammad Yahya Khan
Plaintiff Hassan Fares
Plaintiff John Doe No. 4
Defendant Christopher M. Piehota Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher United States Attorney's Office 2100 Jamieson Ave Alexandria, VA 22314 NA (703) 299−3700 Email: joe.sher@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 4 of 14

Lauren A. Wetzler United States Attorney Office 2100 Jamieson Ave Alexandria, VA 22314 NA (703) 299−3752 Fax: (703) 299−3983 Email: lauren.wetzler@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robin C. Burke former Acting−Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Timothy J. Healy former Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steven Mabeus Principal Deputy Director of theTerrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ann Vessey former Acting Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; inher individual capacity TERMINATED: 08/09/2016

Defendant
Donald Torrence former Principal Deputy Director of theTerrorist Screening Center in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rick Kopel former Principal Deputy Director of theTerrorist Screening Center; in his

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 5 of 14

indivdual capacity

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
G. Clayton Grigg Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deborah Lubman Former Acting−Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cindy Coppola Former Acting−Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Scott Cruse former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cory Nelson former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bryan Lynch Former Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his individual capacity

represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 6 of 14

Defendant James G. Kennedy Director, Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Director of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP); in his individual capacity
Defendant Matthew G. Olsen Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; in his individual capacity
Defendant Unidentified FBI Agents in their individual capacities, jointly and severally
Defendant Unidentified TSC Agents in their individual capacities, jointly and severally
Defendant Unidentified NCTC Agents in their individual capacities, jointly and severally
Defendant Anne Veysey former Acting Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in her individual capacity
Interested Party Umited States

Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/05/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 14683058122.), filed by John Doe No. 2, Saleem Ali, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Murat Frljuckic, Baby Doe, Samir Anwar, Mariam Jukaku, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 3,

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 7 of 14

05/04/2016
05/04/2016
05/05/2016 05/05/2016 06/22/2016 06/27/2016 07/05/2016
07/05/2016 07/05/2016
07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016

Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Michael Edmund Coleman, Shahir Anwar, Muhamad Haydar, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Wael Hakmeh, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Anas Elhady. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet, # 6 Receipt)(dvanm, ) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
2 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Shereef Akeel and Certification of Local Counsel Gadeir Abbas Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422−4972981. by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
3 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Lena Masri and Certification of Local Counsel Gadeir Abbas Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422−4972987. by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
4 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 5/5/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
5 ORDER granting 3 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 5/5/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
6 Summons Issued, via SPS, as to Timothy J. Healy and Christopher M. Piehota. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
7 Summons Issued, via SPS, as to Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Donald Torrence, Ann Vessey, and via Certified Mail as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants, MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
9 Notice of Hearing Date re 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Osama Hussein Ahmed. US Attorney served on 6/27/2016, answer due 8/26/2016. Attorney General served 6/27/16; C. Piehota served 7/1/2016; R. Burke served6/28/2016; T. Healy served 7/1/2016; S. Mabeus served 6/28/2016; D. Torrence served 7/1/2016; R. Kopel served 6/29/2016; G. Grigg served 6/29/2016; D. Lubman served 6/28/2016; C. Coppola served 7/1/2016; S. Cruse served 7/4/2016; C. Nelson served 6/29/2016; B. Lynch served 6/29/2016; J. Kennedy served 6/29/2016; M. Olsen served 6/29/2016 (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve. Motion Hearing set for 8/4/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (clar, ) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Nachmanoff. 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve (clar, ) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
Notice of Correction re 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve The filing user has been notified to file the document separately for each motion relief in the future. (clar, ) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 8 of 14

07/06/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016 07/29/2016
07/29/2016 07/29/2016
07/29/2016 08/02/2016 08/09/2016
08/09/2016 08/12/2016

Notice of Correction re 9 Notice of Hearing Date. The filing user has been notified that motions will not be heard on (8/4/16) before Judge Nachmanoff and has been instructed to renotice the motion. (Deadlines set for 8/4/16 have been terminated) (clar, ) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
11 NOTICE by Umited States re 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve of Potential Participation (Sher, R.) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by R. Joseph Sher on behalf of Umited States (Sher, R.) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
13 MOTION for Extension by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
14 Waiver of re 13 MOTION for Extension Oral Argument by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
15 ORDER granting in part 13 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiffs shall file any response to the United States Statement of Interest by August 9, 2016. Plaintiffs pending Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery and Extend the Rule 4(m) Service Period shall be heard at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, August 12, 2015. That Motion shall remain before Judge Nachmanoff until further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 7/29/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve. Motion Hearing set for 8/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
16 RESPONSE in Opposition re 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve United States Statement of Interest filed by Umited States. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants, filed by John Doe No. 2, Saleem Ali, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Murat Frljuckic, Baby Doe, Samir Anwar, Mariam Jukaku, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 3, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Michael Edmund Coleman, Shahir Anwar, Muhamad Haydar, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Wael Hakmeh, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Anas Elhady. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) Modified text on 8/11/2016 (klau, ). (Entered: 08/09/2016)
18 NOTICE by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout re 16 Response in Opposition to Motion (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
19 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff:Motion Hearing held on 8/12/2016 re 8 MOTION for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve filed by Gulet Mohamed, Baby Doe, Wael Hakmeh, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mariam Jukaku, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, John Doe No. 3, Anas Elhady. Appearances of counsel. Motion argued. Request to take early discovery regarding identities of unknown defts − DENIED. Request for extension of time to effectuate service − GRANTED in part. Pltfs shall have 30 days to effectuate service upon deft Anne Veysey. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(cmar, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 9 of 14

08/12/2016
08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/18/2016 08/24/2016 09/02/2016
09/02/2016 09/02/2016 09/06/2016 09/06/2016 09/06/2016

20 ORDER: This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants and for Extension of Time to Serve (Dkt. No. 8 ). Having reviewed the pleadings and heard the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' request to take early discovery regarding the identities of the unknown Defendants is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to effectuate service is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this order to effectuate service upon Defendant Anne Veysey. The request is denied in all other respects. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 08/12/16. (cmar, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, and to exceed the page limitation of Local Civil Rule 7(F)(3) by G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
22 NOTICE by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence re 21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, and to exceed the page limitation of Local Civil Rule 7(F)(3) of Submission Without a Hearing Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(E) (Sher, R.) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
23 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Russell Whitman and Certification of Local Counsel R. Joseph Sher by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
24 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 8/18/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
25 ORDER granting in part 21 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, and to exceed the page limitation of Local Civil Rule 7(F)(3). The fourteen served defendants may file a single, consolidated dispositive motion and supporting brief on September 2, 2016, and may exceed the page limit for such brief by no more than fifteen pages. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 8/24/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION for Summary Judgment by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Elizabeth Gary, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Ray Santana, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Julie Halferty, # 4 Exhibit Fourth Circuit Slip Op. in Mohamed v. Holder)(Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
27 Memorandum in Support re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
28 Notice of Hearing Date of October 6, 2016 re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment (Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing set for 10/6/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (clar, ) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
Notice of Correction re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment . The filing user has been notified to file the document separately for each motion relief. (clar, ) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel,

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 10 of 14

09/06/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016
09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/30/2016 09/30/2016
09/30/2016 10/05/2016

Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
30 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
32 Waiver of re 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oral Argument by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
33 ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Opposition due by 9/30/2016. Defendant's Replies due by 10/20/2016.. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 9/20/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
Reset Deadlines as to 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing set for 11/3/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris (per JCC Chambers). (klau, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
34 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
35 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, [CORRECTED and CONSENTED] by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
36 ORDER−It is herehy ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to Defendants Motions on or before October 5, 2016. Defendants shall file a reply in support of their Motions on or before October 24, 2016. A hearing shall be held on the Motions at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 3, 2016. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 09/30/2016. (lbru) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 11 of 14

10/07/2016
10/18/2016
10/24/2016
10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/25/2016 10/27/2016
10/27/2016
10/27/2016 10/27/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016

Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment [CORRECTED] filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
39 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be stayed pending the Supreme Courts decision in Turkmen. The parties shall submit briefs apprising the Court of their respective positions no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 27, 2016. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 10/18/2016. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment , 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
41 MOTION for Joinder by Anne Veysey. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
42 Notice of Hearing Date of November 17, 2016 re 41 MOTION for Joinder (Sher, R.) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 41 MOTION for Joinder . Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (clar, ) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
43 Memorandum in Response to 39 Order to Show Cause, filed by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence, Anne Veysey. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
44 MOTION for Leave to File by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
45 NOTICE by Donald Thomas re 39 Order to Show Cause, (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
46 Notice of Hearing Date set for 11/17/2016 re 44 MOTION for Leave to File (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
Notice of Correction re: 45 NOTICE. The filing user has been notified to refile the document to include the correct case number and using the correct event. (pmil, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Nachmanoff. 44 MOTION for Leave to File (klau, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
Notice of Correction re 46 Notice of Hearing Date, The filing user has been notified that motions will not be heard on Thursday and has been instructed to renotice the motion to Friday Docket. (klau, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 12 of 14

10/28/2016 10/31/2016 10/31/2016
11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 03/30/2017
03/30/2017
03/30/2017 04/04/2017 04/04/2017 04/26/2017 05/03/2017

Set Deadlines as to 44 MOTION for Leave to File . Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (Attorney has been notified to file amended notice of hearing for Friday Docket − Deadlines Terminated ) (klau, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
47 Notice of Hearing Date [CORRECTED] set for 11/18/2016 re Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 44 MOTION for Leave to File (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
48 Response to 45 NOTICE [CORRECTED] filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
Reset Deadlines as to 44 MOTION for Leave to File . Motion Hearing set for 11/18/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (clar, ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Nachmanoff. 44 MOTION for Leave to File (clar, ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
49 ORDER STAYING CASE. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 11/1/2016. (see Order for details)(dvanm, ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/20/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren A. Wetzler on behalf of Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence, Anne Veysey (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
51 Consent MOTION to Continue Status Conference by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence, Anne Veysey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
52 Waiver of Hearing by Robin C. Burke, Cindy Coppola, Scott Cruse, G. Clayton Grigg, Timothy J. Healy, James G. Kennedy, Rick Kopel, Deborah Lubman, Bryan Lynch, Steven Mabeus, Cory Nelson, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota, Donald Torrence, Anne Veysey (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
53 ORDER granting Motion 51 to Continue: ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and that the status conference previously scheduled for April 20, 2017, is rescheduled for May 4, 2017 @ 10:00AM. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 04/04/2017. (mpha) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/4/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. See Order 53 . (mpha) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
Reset Deadlines/Hearings Status Conference set for 5/3/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (Per JCC chambers) (clar, ) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
54 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James C. Cacheris: Status Conference held on 5/3/2017. Gadeir I. Abbas and Lena Masri present on behlaf of plaintiffs. Lauren A. Wetzler and James R. Whitman present on behalf of defendants. The Court continues matter to Thursday, June 29, 2017 @ 10:00AM for a Status Conference. (Court Reporter Tonia Harris)(mpha) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 13 of 14

05/03/2017 06/29/2017
06/29/2017 06/29/2017 07/13/2017 07/13/2017 07/20/2017 07/20/2017 08/03/2017 08/03/2017

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference reset for 6/29/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (mpha) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James C. Cacheris: Status Conference held on 6/29/2017. Gadeir I. Abbas and Lena Masri present on behalf of plaintiffs. Lauren A. Wetzler and James R. Whitman present on behalf of defendants. Matter briefed, argued, and taken under advisement. Plaintiff requests permission to file amended complaint within 30 days. Parties given 14 days each to file brief on Abbasi issues for the current complaint. Status Conference/Argument tentatively set for 8/17/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. Parties may schedule a telephone conference if they wish to change the date. Order to follow. (Court Reporter Tonia Harris)(mpha) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
56 ORDER LIFTING STAY. The parties shall, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, file supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the Supreme Courts recent decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15−1358, 2017 WL 2621317 (U.S. June 19, 2017) on Plaintiffs claims; and 3) Oral argument regarding the parties supplemental briefs is tentatively scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on August 17, 2017. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 06/29/2017. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
Set Deadlines as to 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment , 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 1000 before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
57 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Briefing by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
58 ORDER that 57 Motion for Extension of Time to File is GRANTED and the parties shall be permitted an additional seven (7) days within which to file the supplemental briefs required by the Court's prior Order. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 7/13/17. (klau, ) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
59 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Brief by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
60 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The parties shall be permitted an additional fourteen (14) days within which to file the supplemental briefs required by the Courts prior Order. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 07/20/2017. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
61 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Briefs by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
62 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The parties shall be permitted an additional fourteen (14) days within which to file the supplemental briefs required by the Courts prior Order. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 08/03/2017. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

Case: 1:16-cv-373 As of: 07/10/2018 09:57 AM EDT 14 of 14

08/16/2017 08/16/2017 09/13/2017 09/14/2017

63 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Briefing and to Stay the 8.17 Hearing by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
64 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time to File. the parties shall file the supplemental briefs required by the Courts prior Order on or before September 13, 2017. It is further ORDERED that the hearing in this case scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 16, 2017, shall be removed from the Courts docket and postponed to a later date to be determined. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 08/16/2017. (dvanm, ) (Main Document 64 replaced, to add correct order, on 8/16/2017) (dvanm, ). (Entered: 08/16/2017)
65 STIPULATION of Dismissal (joint) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Baby Doe, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Mariam Jukaku, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Gulet Mohamed, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
66 So Ordered re 65 Stipulation of Dismissal, filed by Gulet Mohamed, Baby Doe, Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, Muhamad Haydar, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Mariam Jukaku, Samir Anwar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Anas Elhady. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 09/14/2017. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/14/2017)