IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION

Filing 1656

STATUS REPORT (also filed as dkt. no. 1655 in No. 08-mc-0442) by GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, BARACK OBAMA, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Alternative Proposed Order)(Berman, Julia)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Misc. No. 08-0442 Civil Action Nos. 04-cv-1937 (PLF), 05-cv-2371 (RCL), 05-cv-2385 (RBW), 05-cv-2386 (RBW), 06-cv-1690 (RBW), 06-cv-1766 (HHK), 08-cv-1221 (CKK), 08-cv-1207 (RWR), 08-cv-1440 (CKK), 08-cv-1789 (RWR), 08-cv-2083 (PLF)

[PROPOSED] ORDER The Court, having fully considered Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time to File Factual Returns and Legal Justification, hereby ORDERS that the Motion be GRANTED. Respondents shall have through and including Friday, March 20, 2009, to file the legal justification statements for ISNs 22, 49, 259, 335, 10020, 10025, and 10027. Respondents shall have through and including Monday, March 2, 2009, to file the factual return for ISN 10025. Respondents shall have through and including Tuesday, March 31, 2009, to file the factual return for ISN 10015. Respondents shall not be required to file a factual return for ISN 54 during the pendency of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition without Prejudice, or, Alternatively, to Hold Habeas Petition in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military Commission Proceedings; if the Court denies that Motion, respondents shall file the factual return for ISN 54 thirty days after the Court issues the decision denying that Motion. Respondents shall not be required to file a factual return for ISN 768 during the pendency of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition without Prejudice, or, Alternatively, to Hold Habeas Petition in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military

Commission Proceedings; if the Court denies that Motion, respondents shall file the factual return for ISN 768 thirty days after the Court issues the decision denying that Motion. Respondents shall not be required to file a factual return for ISN 900 during the pendency of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petitions without Prejudice, or, Alternatively, to Hold Habeas Petitions in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military Commission Proceedings; if the Court denies that Motion, respondents shall file the factual return for ISN 900 thirty days after the Court issues the decision denying that Motion. Respondents shall not be required to file a factual return for ISN 10018 while the authorization issues with that petition remain unresolved. If the Court finds the petition was properly authorized, respondents shall file the factual return for ISN 10018 thirty days after the Court renders that decision. Respondents shall not be required to file a factual return for ISN 1045 while the authorization issues with that petition remain unresolved or during the pendency of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petitions without Prejudice, or, Alternatively, to Hold Habeas Petitions in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military Commission Proceedings; if the Court denies that Motion and finds the petition was properly authorized, respondents shall file the factual return for ISN 10018 thirty days after the Court renders both of those decisions.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this _________ day of _____________, 2009.

___________________________________ United States District Judge 1

1

To the extent that the Judge signing this Order is not the Coordinating Judge in these cases, the Order only applies to those cases assigned to the undersigned Judge. -2-