Mohammed v. Gonzales et al

Filing 407

ORDER granting 398 Motion to Clarify by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/1/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 07-cv-02697-MSK-BNB
KHALFAN KHAMIS MOHAMMED,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, The U.S. Attorney,
HARLEY LAPPIN, Director of B.O.P.,
RON WILEY, ADX Warden, and
HARRELL WATTS, Administrator of National Inmate Appeals, and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CLARIFY
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendants’ Motion to Clarify
(# 398).
The motion requests clarification of footnote 13 of this Court’s June 17, 2014 Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law (# 396). That footnote states “[t]he Court finds Mr. Moen’s
contention that the FBI had always considered these facts – Nassor’s untruthfulness and his
perceived animosity towards the U.S. – as further supporting the Mr. Johnson’s October 2009
decision to limit contact with Nassor to be incredible.” The Defendants seek a clarification as to
whether the Court’s use of the term “incredible” represents a finding that the Court deemed Mr.
Moen to be testifying “untruthfully” (as such a finding could have adverse consequences on Mr.
Moen’s career status as a law enforcement officer).

1

The word “incredible” is defined simply as “hard to believe.” Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed. The Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law sets forth
in extensive detail the particular reasons why it did not believe certain portions of Mr. Moen’s
testimony (and the Defendants’ motion reflects that the Defendants have correctly ascertained
the Court’s reasons). At no point did the Court articulate a belief that Mr. Moen gave testimony
that he knew to be false or that he was purposefully attempting to deceive the Court; had the
Court found that to be the case, its Findings of Fact would have so reflected.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion for Clarification (# 398) is GRANTED as set forth
herein.
Dated this 1st day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge

2