You're viewing Docket Item 96 from the case HATIM et al v. BUSH et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

_____________________________________
AL-OSHAN et al.,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
TUNAMI et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioner/Plaintiff,

____________________________________
SOHAIL,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondent/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Civil Action No.: 05-0520 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-0526 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-0993 (RMU)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 7

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
AL-KARIM et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
AL-HELA et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

____________________________________

v.

ZALITA et al.,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

Civil Action No.: 05-0998 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-1048 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-1220 (RMU)

2

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 3 of 7

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
AL-HATIM et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
KIYEMBA et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
RABBANI et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Civil Action No.: 05-1429 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-1509 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-1607 (RMU)

3

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 4 of 7

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

___________________________________
ALKHEMISI et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
AL HALMANDY et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
AL-DELEBANY et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Civil Action No.: 05-1983 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-2385 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 05-2477 (RMU)

4

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 5 of 7

____________________________________

v.

NASEER et al.,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

____________________________________
AL-ZARNOUQI et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
____________________________________:

Respondents/Defendants.

BUSH et al.,

v.

Civil Action No.: 06-1689 (RMU)

Civil Action No.: 06-1767 (RMU)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GRANTING THE PETITIONERS’ MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION;

VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING THE CASES; STAYING THE CASES; AND

DIRECTING THAT THE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND COUNSEL ACCESS RULES

REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR THE DURATION OF THE STAY

On September 20, 2007, this court dismissed these cases pursuant to the D.C. Circuit

decision in Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 3078

(U.S. June 29, 2007) (No. 06-1195). In so doing, the court relied on the Circuit’s conclusion that

the district courts lack jurisdiction over the petitioners’ cases. Order (Sept. 20, 2007). In the

5

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 6 of 7

week following the court’s order, many of the petitioners moved the court to reconsider this order

of dismissal.



Upon careful consideration of the petitioners’ concerns and the government’s responses,

this court determines the appropriate course of action is to vacate its dismissal and stay the

above-captioned cases. Such action maintains the status quo ante with regard to counsel’s access

to the petitioners, aligns the court with recent decisions in related cases, and harmonizes

2

1

jurisdictional questions between this court and the D.C. Circuit. Accordingly, it is this 5th day

3

of October, hereby

ORDERED that the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration are GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order dismissing the cases is VACATED; and it

is

ORDERED that the cases are STAYED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the protective orders and counsel access rules remain in

effect for the duration of the stay.

1

2

3

This court expresses no small concern over the Department of Justice precipitously disrupting
petitioners’ access to their counsel.

As Judge Kessler has recently noted, the extraordinary procedural dispositions in
Boumediene “cast a deep shadow of uncertainty” over this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the
petitioners’ claims. Ruzatullah v. Gates, No. 06-1707, Order at 5 (Oct. 2, 2007).

On September 7, 2007, the D.C. Circuit recalled its mandate in Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-11509,
directing the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “return
forthwith . . . the mandate issued May 10, 2007.” E.g., Naseer v. Bush, Mot. for Reconsid., Ex.
D. Even though Kiyemba was before this court in the first instance, the first notice the court
received of the recalled mandate was in the form of an exhibit to the petitioners’ motions for
reconsideration. Id. It should come as no surprise that expeditious and accurate docket
management is hindered by the absence of information upon which the court can be expected to
rely when disposing of cases.

6

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 96 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 7 of 7

SO ORDERED.

RICARDO M. URBINA
United States District Judge

7