You're viewing Docket Item 4 from the case AL SHUBATI et al v. BUSH et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Petitioners,

v.

GEORGE W. BUSH,

Civil Action No. 07-CV-



ABDURRAHMAN ABDULLAH
ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

President of the United States,
et al.,

Respondents.

RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S RELATED CASE DESIGNATION

Respondents hereby object to the Notice of Designation of Related Civil Cases Pending

in This or Any Other United States Court (the “Notice”) filed by petitioner simultaneously with

his petition in the above-captioned case.

Petitioner’s Notice is potentially misleading in that it singles out one Guantanamo Bay

detainee habeas case, John Does 1-570 v. Bush, 05-CV-323 (CKK), as if it were the primary or

lead case of all the Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases. In fact, there are approximately 200

Guantanamo habeas cases pending in this Court. While the limited amount of space on the form

doubtless makes it impossible to list all the cases there, no principled reason exists for elevating

John Does 1-570 to the most prominent position in this manner.1

1 And if petitioner intended to designate this case as being related to all of the

Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases, he cannot do so. For one thing, this case does not meet
the criteria for being treated as related to other scores of Guantanamo cases, and for another, to
treat this case as related to the other detainee cases would b entirely inconsistent with the fashion
in which the Court has, for a long while, treated those cases from a calendering and docketing
perspective.

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of 4

More importantly, the John Does 1-570 case does not meet the criteria for a related case

under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3), which provides that a related civil case must be “pending on

the merits in the District Court.” On October 31, 2006, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted

respondents motion to dismiss John Does 1-570. See Memorandum Opinion and Order (dkt.

nos. 30, 31). Judge Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the Doe case with prejudice in its entirety,

concluding that counsel who initiated the litigation did not have standing to bring suit on behalf

of unspecified “John Doe” detainees. See id. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied the John Does 1-

570 petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2007.2 See Order (dkt. no. 42).

Consequently, the John Does 1-570 case does not qualify as a related case because it was not

“pending on the merits” at the time the above-captioned case was filed.

Petitioner apparently attempts to circumvent fact that he filed this case after enactment of

the Detainee Treatment Act (“DTA”), Pub. L. No. 109-148, tit. X, 119 Stat. 2680, by arguing he

was included as an unnamed petitioner in John Does 1-570, a case filed prior to enactment of the

DTA purportedly seeking habeas relief on behalf of hundreds of unnamed Guantanamo

detainees.3 See Petition at 2. As explained above, because the John Does 1-570 case was

dismissed with prejudice, petitioner cannot look to it case for purposes of attempting to

circumvent the DTA’s effective date provision. Furthermore, even aside from the DTA, the

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCA”), Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600,

2 No appeal has been filed in the John Does 1-570 case.

3 In light of the fact that the John Does 1-570 case was dismissed because counsel in that

case did not have standing to bring suit on behalf of unspecified “John Doe” detainees, the
petitioner in this case cannot be considered one of the “same parties” for purposes of Local Civil
Rule 40.5(a)(4).

2

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 3 of 4

unambiguously provides that this Court currently lacks jurisdiction over this case regardless of

when it was filed. See 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).

For these reasons, respondents object to any implication that the instant case is somehow

more related to John Does 1-570 than to the other scores of pending Guantanamo Bay detainee

cases. Any coordination of these cases should be effected by deliberate action of the Court and

not through arbitrary or incomplete application of the Court’s process with respect to

identification of related cases. Cf. L. Cv. R. 40.5(c) (in the event of an improvident assignment

by the Clerk’s Office due to an errant related case designation, the new case may be transferred

to the Calendar Committee for a determination whether it should be reassigned at random).

Dated: December 31, 2007

Respectfully submitted,



JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General

DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel

/s/ Andrew I. Warden
JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134)
VINCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191)
JUDRY L. SUBAR (D.C. Bar 347518)
TERRY M. HENRY
JAMES J. SCHWARTZ
JEAN LIN
ROBERT J. KATERBERG
ANDREW I. WARDEN (IN Bar 23840-49)
NICHOLAS A. OLDHAM
JAMES C. LUH
Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

3

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 4 of 4

Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-4938
Fax: (202) 616-8470

Attorneys for Respondents

4