Al Shimari v. CACI et al.

Synopsis

Al Shimari  v. CACI is a federal lawsuit  brought by four Iraqi torture victims against private US-based contractor CACI International Inc., and CACI Premier Technology, Inc.  It asserts that CACI  participated directly and through a conspiracy in torture and other illegal conduct while it was providing interrogation services at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Status

CACI’s motion to dismiss was denied in part on March 18, 2009. CACI filed a Notice of Appeal on March 23, 2009. Following the issuance of a briefing schedule on the merits on November 19, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal on November 30, 2009. Defendants’ opening brief to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is due on January 11, 2010; Plaintiffs’ brief is due on February 16, 2010.

Description

Al Shimari  v. CACI was originally brought against L-3 Services Incorporated (formerly Titan Corporation), CACI International Inc., and Timothy Dugan, a former employee of CACI.  CACI and L-3 Services were the U.S. government contractors responsible for interrogation and translation services, respectively, at Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities in Iraq. L-3 Services and Timothy Dugan have since been dismissed as defendants in the case. The complaint alleges that CACI directed and participated in illegal conduct, including torture, at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq where it was hired by the U.S. to provide interrogation services.   The four plaintiffs had all been held at the “hard site” in Abu Ghraib prison.

The suit, brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and federal question jurisdiction, brings claims arising from violations of U.S. and international law including torture; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; war crimes; assault and battery; sexual assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring and supervision; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. There are also civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting counts attached to most of these charges.  Through this action, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Among the heinous acts to which the four Plaintiffs were subjected at the hands of the defendant and certain government co-conspirators were: electric shocks; repeated brutal beatings; sleep deprivation; sensory deprivation; forced nudity; stress positions; sexual assault; mock executions; humiliation; hooding; isolated detention; and prolonged hanging from the limbs.

All of the plaintiffs are innocent Iraqis who were ultimately released without ever being charged with a crime. They all continue to suffer from physical and mental injuries caused by the torture and other abuse.  Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari was detained from 2003 until 2008, during which he was held at Abu Ghraib “hard site” for about two months.  While he was there, CACI and its co-conspirators tortured him in various ways.  He was subjected to electric shocks, deprived of food, threatened by dogs, and kept naked while forced to engage in physical activities to the point of exhaustion.  Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid was detained from 2003 until 2005, during which he was imprisoned at Abu Ghraib “hard site” for about three months.  While detained there, CACI and its co-conspirators tortured Mr. Rashid by placing him in stress positions for extended periods of time, humiliating him, depriving him of oxygen, food, and water, shooting him in the head with a taser gun, and by beating him so severely that he suffered from broken limbs and vision loss.  Mr. Rashid was forcibly subjected to sexual acts by a female as he was cuffed and shackled to cell bars.  He was also forced to witness the rape of a female prisoner. Sa’ad Hamza Hantoosh Al-Zuba’e was imprisoned at Abu Ghraib from 2003 until 2004. CACI and its co-conspirators tortured him while he was detained there by subjecting him to extremely hot and cold water, beating his genitals with a stick, and detaining him in a solitary cell in conditions of sensory deprivation for almost a full year.  Salah Hasan Nusaif Jasim Al-Ejaili was imprisoned at the Abu Ghraib “hard site” for approximately four months.  While he was there, CACI and its co-conspirators stripped him and kept him naked, threatened him with dogs, deprived him of food, beat him, and kept him in a solitary cell in conditions of sensory deprivation.

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by Susan L. Burke, William T. O’Neil and William F. Gould of Burke O’Neil LLC, of Wshington, D.C.; Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC, of Troy, Michigan.

Timeline

• June 30, 2008: Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Timothy Dugan, CACI International, Inc., CACI Premier Technology, Inc., and L-3 Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for Ohio, Southern District, Eastern Division.
• August 7 and 8, 2008: Defendants’ motion to change venue granted and the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia.
• August 20, 2008: Plaintiffs’ claims against L-3 Services dismissed without prejudice.
• September 12, 2008: Plaintiffs’ claims against Timothy Dugan dismissed without prejudice.
• September 15, 2008: Plaintiffs filed Amended Complaint. 
• October 2, 2008: Defendants filed motion to dismiss Amended Complaint.
• October 10, 2008: Defendants filed motion for partial summary judgment based on statute of limitations. 
• October 16, 2008:  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
• October 21, 2008: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.
• On October 22, 2008, Defendants filed reply to response to motion to dismiss amended complaint.
• October 24, 2008: Hearing held before District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee regarding motion to dismiss amended complaint.
• October 24, 2008: Defendants filed reply to response to motion for partial summary judgment.
• October 27, 2008: Plaintiffs file motion for leave to file memorandum rebutting CACI’s factual misrepresentations.
• October 29, 2008: Defendants filed memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file memorandum rebutting CACI’s factual representations.
• November 3, 2008: Plaintiffs filed reply to response to motion for leave to file memorandum rebutting CACI’s factual representations.
• November 25, 2008: Order denying Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.
• December 19, 2008, Defendants filed motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum based on Senate Armed Services Committee Report in support of motion to dismiss amended complaint.
• January 2, 2009: Plaintiffs filed response to defendant’s motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss amended complaint.
• January 8, 2009: Defendants filed response to reply to defendant’s motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss amended complaint.
• January 14, 2009: Order granted defendant’s motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss amended complaint.
• January 21, 2009: Order granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to rebut defendant’s factual misrepresentations.
• March 18, 2009: Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss, in part.
• April 30, 2009: Order filed suspending briefing schedule copies to all parties.
• November 16, 2009: Order deferring action on motion to dismiss appeal; order on briefing schedule.
• November 30, 2009: Plaintiffs' notice of cross-appeal.
• December 2, 2009: Revised appellate briefing schedule issued; order consolidating case 09-2324 with 09-1335; and briefing order on Cross-Appeal schedule. Plaintiffs' notice of cross-appeal.
• December 7, 2009: CACI's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' cross-appeal.