IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION

Filing 143

STATUS REPORT for Petitioner Jobran Saad Al-Quhtani by GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION. (Skye, Donald)

Download PDF
IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Doc. 143 Filed via ECF with the permission of the CSO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) GUANTÁNAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Civil Action No. 05-2387 (RMC) STATUS REPORT Petitioner files this Status Report pursuant to the Scheduling Order issued by Judge Hogan on July 11, 2008 ("Scheduling Order"). (Docket No. 30 at 2, Case No. 05-2387 (RMC).) Background Petitioner Jobran Saad Al-Quhtani is a citizen of Saudi Arabia who is currently incarcerated at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba ("Guantánamo"). Petitioner has been held at Guantánamo for over six years, and has not been cleared for release or transfer. Petition for Habeas Corpus On December 12, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus through his next friend, his wife Nawal Maday Al-Quhtani, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Docket No.1, Case No. 05-2387 (RMC)). The habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on January 27, 2007. However, Judge Collyer noted that the parties could move to reinstate motions if the appellate court concluded that jurisdiction in the district court was proper. (Docket No. 7 at 7, Case No. 05-2387 (RMC).) On May 10, 2007, Judge Collyer dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. (Docket No. 23 at 1-2, Case No. 05-2387 (RMC).) sf-2546243 1 05-cv-02387(RMC): Status Report Dockets.Justia.com Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that detainees had the right to petition for habeas, and that federal district courts retained jurisdiction to hear petitions. Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. at 2229, 2274-75 (2008). In light of Boumediene and Judge Collyer's January 27, 2006 order, Petitioner intends to move to vacate the dismissal and to reinstate his petition for writ of habeas corpus before Judge Collyer. Petitioner's counsel has been informed by the Government that it does not object to the reinstatement of Petitioner's habeas petition. Criminal Charges On May 28, 2008 charges were preferred against the Petitioner by the Office of Military Commissions alleging conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. The charges have not been referred to a Military Commission. Protective Order Currently, there is no protective order in Petitioner's case. On May 10, 2007, Judge Collyer dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction before entering a protective order. (Docket No. 23 at 1-2, Case No. 05-2387 (RMC).) sf-2546243 2 05-cv-02387(RMC): Status Report Factual Return No factual return has been produced by the Government in Petitioner's case before this court. Dated: July 18, 2008 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Skye Donald Charles E. Patterson Skye Donald Morrison & Foerster LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Tel. (213) 892-5200 Fax: (213) 892-5454 G. Brian Busey DC Bar # 366760 Ketanji Brown Jackson DC Bar # 460651 Morrison & Foerster LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 5500 Washington, DC 20006-1888 Phone: (202) 887-1500 Fax: (202) 887-0763 Michael A. Jacobs Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Fax: (415) 268-7522 Counsel for Petitioner sf-2546243 3 05-cv-02387(RMC): Status Report CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Skye Donald, hereby certify that I today caused a true and accurate copy of the Petitioner's Status Report to be served electronically via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. Dated: July 17, 2008 /s/ Skye Donald_______ Skye Donald sf-2546243 4 05-cv-02387(RMC): Status Report

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?