IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION

Filing 1663

MEMORANDUM OPINION declining to consolidate petitions in 08-mc-0442 and recommending reassignment of fifteen petitions. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 2/27/09. (lctfh1)

IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION

Doc. 1663

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Misc. No. 08-mc-0442 (TFH) IN RE: Civil Action Nos. GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION
02-cv-0828, 04-cv-1136, 04-cv-1164, 04-cv-1194, 04-cv-1254, 04-cv-1937, 04-cv-2022, 04-cv-2046, 04-cv-2215, 05-cv-0023, 05-cv-0247, 05-cv-0270, 05-cv-0280, 05-cv-0329, 05-cv-0359, 05-cv-0392, 05-cv-0492, 05-cv-0520, 05-cv-0526, 05-cv-0569, 05-cv-0634, 05-cv-0748, 05-cv-0763, 05-cv-0764, 05-cv-0877, 05-cv-0883, 05-cv-0889, 05-cv-0892, 05-cv-0993, 05-cv-0994, 05-cv-0999, 05-cv-1048, 05-cv-1124, 05-cv-1189, 05-cv-1220, 05-cv-1244, 05-cv-1347, 05-cv-1353, 05-cv-1429, 05-cv-1457, 05-cv-1487, 05-cv-1490, 05-cv-1497, 05-cv-1504, 05-cv-1506, 05-cv-1555, 05-cv-1592, 05-cv-1601, 05-cv-1607, 05-cv-1623, 05-cv-1638, 05-cv-1645, 05-cv-1646, 05-cv-1678, 05-cv-1971, 05-cv-1983, 05-cv-2088, 05-cv-2104, 05-cv-2185, 05-cv-2186, 05-cv-2199, 05-cv-2249, 05-cv-2349, 05-cv-2367, 05-cv-2371, 05-cv-2378, 05-cv-2379, 05-cv-2380, 05-cv-2384, 05-cv-2385, 05-cv-2386, 05-cv-2387, 05-cv-2479, 06-cv-1668, 06-cv-1684, 06-cv-1690, 06-cv-1758, 06-cv-1761, 06-cv-1765, 06-cv-1766, 06-cv-1767, 07-cv-1710, 07-cv-2337, 07-cv-2338, 08-cv-0987, 08-cv-1101, 08-cv-1153, 08-cv-1207, 08-cv-1221, 08-cv-1224, 08-cv-1228, 08-cv-1230, 08-cv-1232, 08-cv-1233, 08-cv-1235, 08-cv-1236, 08-cv-1237, 08-cv-1238, 08-cv-1360, 08-cv-1440, 08-cv-1789, 08-cv-1805, 08-cv-1828, 08-cv-1923, 08-cv-2019, 08-cv-2083

MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 17, 2008, the Court ordered the parties in the above-captioned cases to confer and "submit a joint filing that identifies petitions that may, based on the similarity of the factual issues involved, be consolidated for merits proceedings." (Docket No. 1323, 08mc-0442). Pursuant to that order, the Court received five such joint filings on January 5, 2009. (Docket Nos. 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1468, 08-mc-0442). The filings identified fifty-two petitions for consolidation into five distinct groups. After a careful review of each joint filing, the Court has determined that consolidating these petitions at this time would not

Dockets.Justia.com

improve the efficiency of the habeas corpus proceedings. Accordingly, the Court declines to consolidate any of the fifty-two petitions. Although consolidation is not appropriate at this time, the Court recommends r eassigning some of these petitions into three groups. The Court believes that the joint filings identified three groups of related petitions. See Docket Nos. 1464, 1465, 1468, 08-mc-442. The petitions within these three groups, fifteen petitions in all, appear to "involve common issues of fact" and therefore are "related" under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3). In light of the factual similarities of the petitions in each group, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court r ecommends that the Calendar and Case Management Committee reassign these fifteen petitions into the following three groups:

Group 1
(Docket No. 1464, 08-mc-0442) Petitioner ISN 004 ISN 006 ISN 832 ISN 1103 ISN 1104 Case No. 05-cv-2367 08-cv-1828 05-cv-2367 05-cv-2367 05-cv-2367 Judge Rober ts Ur bina Rober ts Rober ts Rober ts

1 2 3 4 5

Accor ding to Respondents, the petitioners in Group 1 "were high ranking officials in the Taliban government," and most of them "worked together in the Taliban's Ministry of Intelligence. " 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1464, at 2. 1 These petitions appear to "involve common issues of fact." LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court recommends that the petitions in this group be transferred to the Calendar and Case

Petitioners dispute that "all five of these detainees served as high-ranking Taliban government officials." 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1464, at 6-7. 2

1

Management Committee for reassignment. Specifically, the Court recommends that these five petitions be reassigned to a single Merits Judge.

Group 2
(Docket No. 1465, 08-mc-0442) Petitioner ISN 326 ISN 327 ISN 329 ISN 330 Case No. 05-cv-2386 05-cv-0892 05-cv-1490 05-cv-2386 Judge Walton Kollar -Kotelly F r iedman Walton

1 2 3 4

Accor ding to Respondents, the petitioners in Group 2: (i) travelled from the same countr y to the same city in a second country; (ii) studied with the same teacher; (iii) stayed in the same house in the second country; (iv) left the house together and travelled together in the second country; (v) attempted to leave the second country together; and (vi) were captured together . 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1465, at 2. The detention of these petitioners appear s to "grow out of the same event." LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Their petitions appear to " involve common issues of fact." Id. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Cour t recommends that the petitions in this group be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment. Specifically, the Court recommends that these four petitions be reassigned to a single Merits Judge.

Group 3
(Docket No. 1468, 08-mc-0442) Petitioner ISN 836 ISN 837 ISN 838 Case No. 06-cv-1765 04-cv-1194 08-cv-1238 3 Judge Kennedy Kennedy Rober ts

1 2 3

4 5 6

ISN 839 ISN 840 ISN 841

04-cv-1194 05-cv-2186 05-cv-0023

Kennedy Huvelle Rober ts

Accor ding to Respondents, the petitioners in Group 3: (i) are citizens of the same countr y; (ii) travelled to a second country in 2000 and 2001; (iii) stayed at similar safehouses while in the second country; (iv) travelled to train at the same military camps; (v) fought coalition forces; (vi) fled to the same city in a third country; and (vii) stayed in the same safehouses in the third country. 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1468, at 2. Additionally, Respondents allege that most of the petitioners were captured on the same day during a raid of these safehouses. Id. The detention of these petitioners appears to "grow out of the same event. " LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Their petitions appear to "involve common issues of fact." Id. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court recommends that the petitions in this group be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment. Specifically, the Court recommends that these six petitions be reassigned to a single Merits Judge. While consolidating the petitions in these three groups is not appropriate at this time, the Court believes that reassigning each group of "related" petitions to a single Merits Judge would conserve judicial resources and promote efficiency. If the Calendar and Case Management Committee decides to reassign these petitions, the presiding Merits Judge can r eexamine the merits of consolidation.

February 27, 2009

/s/ Thomas F. Hogan United States District Judge

4