Mohammed v. Gonzales et al

Filing 407

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?