16‐1176 Tanvir v. Tanzin 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 ____________________ 5 6 August Term, 2016 7 8 (Argued: March 1, 2017 Decided: May 2, 2018) 9 10 Docket No. 16‐1176 11 ____________________ 12 13 MUHAMMAD TANVIR, JAMEEL ALGIBHAH, 14 NAVEED SHINWARI, 15 16 Plaintiffs‐Appellants, 17 18 v. 19 20 FNU TANZIN, Special Agent, FBI; SANYA GARCIA, Special 21 Agent, FBI; JOHN LNU, Special Agent, FBI; FRANCISCO 22 ARTUSA, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN C. HARLEY III, Special 23 Agent, FBI; STEVEN LNU, Special Agent, FBI; MICHAEL 24 LNU, Special Agent, FBI; GREGG GROSSOEHMIG, Special 25 Agent, FBI; WEYSAN DUN, Special Agent in Charge, FBI; 26 JAMES C. LANGENBERG, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, 27 FBI; JOHN DOE #1, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #2, Special 28 Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #3, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #4, 29 Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #5, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN 30 DOE #6, Special Agent, FBI, 31 1 Defendants‐Appellees.1 2 ____________________ 3 Before: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, POOLER and LYNCH, Circuit Judges. 4 Plaintiffs‐Appellants Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibah, and Naveed 5 Shinwari (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from a February 17, 2016 final judgment of the 6 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.), 7 dismissing their complaint against senior federal law enforcement officials and 8 25 named and unnamed federal law enforcement officers. The complaint alleged, 9 inter alia, that in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ refusal to serve as informants, federal 10 officers improperly placed or retained Plaintiffs’ names on the “No Fly List,” in 11 violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment and the Religious 12 Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”). 13 The complaint sought (1) injunctive and declaratory relief against all 14 defendants in their official capacities for various constitutional and statutory 15 violations, and (2) compensatory and punitive damages from federal law 16 enforcement officers in their individual capacities for violations of their rights 17 under the First Amendment and RFRA. After the parties agreed to stay the 1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above. 2 1 official capacity claims, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ individual capacity 2 claims. As relevant here, the district court held that RFRA does not permit the 3 recovery of money damages against federal officers sued in their individual 4 capacities. Plaintiffs appeal that RFRA determination only. 5 Because we disagree with the district court, and hold that RFRA permits a 6 plaintiff to recover money damages against federal officers sued in their 7 individual capacities for violations of RFRA’s substantive protections, we reverse 8 the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. 9 REVERSED and REMANDED. 10 ____________________ 11 RAMZI KASSEM, CLEAR Project, Main Street Legal 12 Services, Inc., City University of New York School of 13 Law (Naz Ahmad, on the brief), Long Island City, NY, for 14 Plaintiffs‐Appellants. 15 Jennifer ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals