Civil Action #DC 06-00545 / AC 06-70574
Documents and narrative on this page last updated August 2006. See more recent articles and documents here:

• Trial (December 2013) and judgment in favor of Dr. Ibrahim
• Additional articles in our blog

Overview

On January 2, 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a mother of four children and a PhD student at Stanford University, was prohibited from boarding an aircraft departing from the San Francisco International Airport. She was told that she was on the No-Fly List and arrested. She is not a terrorist, nor does she have any link or relation to any terrorist. She was just a foreign student here in the United States trying to fly home.

She was handcuffed in front of her child and transported by the San Francisco police to a holding cell where she was searched and detained until after her flight departed. Although she was later told that her name had been removed from the No-Fly List, and was able to return home to Malaysia the next day, Ibrahim has been subject to enhanced searches since the incident. Further, her visa to re-enter the United States to complete her doctorate degree at Stanford was revoked pursuant to Section 212(a)(3(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act – which is entitled ?Terrorist Activities.?

On January 27, 2006, Ibrahim filed, in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, a Complaint for violations of her state and federal civil rights, for state torts of false imprisonment and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for injunctive relief. This District Court case was brought against the DHS, TSA, TSC (Terrorist Screening Center), FAA, FBI, San Francisco International Airport, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department, United Airlines, and a number of individuals directly involved in the incident.

Most Recent Event Involving the Complaint: On 7/20/06 the Court issued an order ruling defendant?s collective motions to dismiss are denied without prejudice and that Ibrahim?s motion to amend to add additional parties is granted. The Court issued a briefing schedule for defendants to file motions to dismiss the amended complaint. See District Court Proceedings.

On January 27, 2006, Ibrahim separately filed, in the Federal Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit, a Petition for Review of TSA’s order (presumably a ?Security Directive?) regarding the maintenance, management, and dissemination of the No-Fly List. This separate action was necessary due to the Appellate Court?s exclusive jurisdiction to review administrative orders issued by the TSA. The petition named as respondents the DHS, TSA, and TSC and their respective organizational heads. The petition claimed the No-Fly List violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and asked for declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy these violations. The petition also asked for an injunction requiring the removal of Ibrahim?s name from the No-Fly List.

Most Recent Event Involving the Petition for Review: After Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Ibrahim’s opposition, and Defendants’ reply, the 9th Circuit transferred the case on 6/13/06 to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for venue purposes. See Appellate Court Proceedings.

District Court Proceedings

In response to Ibrahim’s District Court complaint of 1/27/06, defendant United Airlines filed a motion to dismiss on 4/17/06. Also on 4/17/06, the City and County of San Francisco filed an answer to the complaint and made a demand for a jury trial.

On 5/22/06, Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with a declaration and exhibits in support. The federal defendants’ motion to dismiss Ibrahim’s complaint was based upon, inter alia, 49 U.S.C. 46110(a). Defendants argue that only the appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear Ibrahim?s complaint pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46110(a), Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006), and Green v. TSA, 351 F.Supp.2d 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2005). Also on 5/22/06, the federal defendants filed an accompanying motion, declaration, and proposed order, to file under seal security directives in support of their motion to dismiss.

Defendant John Bondanella, an employee of the private company TSA contracted with to field authorized No-Fly List inquires, allegedly instructed the S.F. Police to arrest Ibrahim and to call the FBI. On 5/22/06, Bondanella filed a motion to dismiss and declaration in support. His main point was that this court did not have personal jurisdiction over him as he was in Virginia when he was called regarding Ibrahim.

On 5/23/06, the court issued an order temporarily granting the federal defendants’ motion to file documents under seal. On 5/26/06, Federal Defendants filed a supplemental response to the court?s order of 5/23/06 stressing the sensitivity of the material filed under seal.

On 5/3106, Ibrahim filed a motion to amend her complaint, a declaration (with exhibits A, B, C, D, and E) in support, and a proposed order.

On 6/8/06, Ibrahim filed an opposition to the federal defendant?s motion to file documents under seal.

On 6/9/06, Ibrahim filed a consolidated opposition to all motions to dismiss and request for judicial notice of documents (with attached exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q) in support of her opposition. In her opposition, Ibrahim argues that 49 U.S.C. 46110(a) does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because, inter alia, the TSC, not the TSA, created the list that comprises the No-Fly List. Because the TSC is part of the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation, 49 U.S.C. 46110(a) does not apply to the TSC?s placement of names on the security watchlist that the TSA uses to comprise the No-Fly List.

On 6/19/06, the federal defendants filed a reply to Ibrahim?s opposition to their motion to file documents under seal.

On 6/29/06, the federal defendants filed a reply to Ibrahim?s opposition to their motion to dismiss. Also on 6/29/06, the federal defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff?s motion to amend.

On 6/29/06, defendant United Airlines filed a reply to Ibrahim’s opposition to their motion to dismiss, objections to plaintiff?s request for judicial notice in support of her opposition, and a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff?s motion to amend her complaint.

On 6/29/06, defendant City and County of San Francisco filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint.

On 6/29/06, defendant Bondanella filed a reply to Ibrahim?s opposition to his motion to dismiss and a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff?s motion to amend her complaint.

On 7/20/06, a hearing on the various motions was held. District Judge Alsup issued an order ruling defendant?s collective motions to dismiss are denied without prejudice and that Ibrahim?s motion to amend to add additional parties is granted. The Court issued a briefing schedule for defendants to file motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On 7/27/06, both Bondanella and United Airlines filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

Having gotten an extension of time, Government defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on 7/31/06. Their brief made no new arguments and conceded that the additional parties included in the amended complaint were but sub-organizations of parties previously named.

Appellate Court Proceedings

On 3/3/06, in response to Ibrahim’s petition for review, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss arguing, inter alia, that the 60 day statute of limitations under 49 U.S.C. 46110(a) had expired 60 days after January 2, 2005, the date of her arrest.

On 4/11/06 Ibrahim filed an opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the 60 day statute of limitations has not expired because Ibrahim never received notice that she was on the No Fly List (the federal defendants refuse to confirm whether she is on the List), and that the 60 day limit should not begin to run until Ibrahim has gone through the passenger verification identification process, her only administrative remedy.

On 4/20/06 Defendants filed their reply to Ibrahim?s opposition to defendant?s motion to dismiss.

On 6/13/06, Ibrahim’s petition for review was transferred from the Ninth Circuit to the D.C. Circuit because the proper venue is for the Circuit of residence or for the D.C. Circuit. As Ibrahim is not a resident of this country, the Ninth Circuit ordered the transfer of Ibrahim’s Petition for Review of TSA’s order regarding the No-Fly List to the D.C. Circuit.

On 7/21/06, Defendants filed in the D.C. Circuit Court another (similar to the one they filed in the 9th Cir.) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

As of 7/31/06, no date had been set for oral argument by the D.C. Circuit.

Documents and narrative on this page last updated August 2006. See more recent articles and documents here:

• Trial (December 2013) and judgment in favor of Dr. Ibrahim
• Additional articles in our blog

Document List