Opinion ID: 2605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Complaint and the District Court's Opinion

Text: On January 22, 2004, Arar filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In addition to its factual allegations, his complaint asserts as Claims for Relief: 1. That defendants, in contravention of the Torture Victim Prevention Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (note), acted in concert with Jordanian and Syrian officials, and under color of Syrian law, to conspire and/or aid and abet in violating his right to be free from torture (Count 1). 2. That defendants knowingly or recklessly subjected him to torture and coercive interrogation in Syria in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process (Count 2). 3. That defendants knowingly or recklessly subjected him to arbitrary detention without trial in Syria in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process (Count 3). 4. That defendants intentionally or recklessly subjected him to arbitrary detention and coercive and involuntary custodial interrogation in the United States, and interfered with his ability to obtain counsel or petition the courts for redress, in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process (Count 4). See Arar, 414 F.Supp.2d at 257-58. The district court denied Arar's claim for declaratory relief, dismissed Counts 1, 2, and 3 with prejudice, and dismissed Count 4 without prejudice and with leave to replead. Id. at 287-88. The district court decided that: 1) Arar lacks standing to bring a claim for declaratory relief; 2) Arar has no TVPA action since (a) in the court's view, Congress provided no private right of action under the TVPA for non-citizens such as Arar, and (b) he cannot show that defendants were acting under color of law, of any foreign nation, id. at 287; 3) even though the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not foreclose jurisdiction over Arar's substantive due process claims, no cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), can be extended in light of special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, id. at 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999, namely the national security and foreign policy considerations at stake; and 4) prior cases holding that inadmissible aliens deserve little due process protection are inapplicable to Arar's claim that he was deprived of due process during his period of domestic detention because Arar was not attempting to effect an entry into the United States, and therefore the circumstances and conditions of confinement to which Arar was subjected while in U.S. custody may potentially raise Bivens claims, but Arar was required to replead them without regard to any rendition claim and name those defendants that were personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional treatment. Arar, 414 F.Supp.2d at 287-88. Arar declined the district court's invitation to replead. Instead, he appeals from the judgment of the district court.