Respondents filed a submission under se al on Octobe r 16, 2009. Petitioner' s counsel 1 asks that this Court "abstain f rom ruling on Respondents' reque st for dismissal" bec ause " the information in Respondents' seale d filing ma y fac ilitate a visit between c ounsel and Mr. Abd Al Sattar." Pet'r ' s Supplemental Status R eport [Docket Entry 144], at 1. The Court has revie wed re sp on de nts ' se a le d f

ili ngand c on c lud e s th a t it

do e s n ot a ff

e c t th e Court ' s d e c isi on

to d ism iss petitioner' s habea s action. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
MUIEEN ADEEN JAMA L ADEEN ABD AL F USAL ABD AL SATT AR, P etitioner , v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 23 6 ( JD B) BARACK

OBAMA, et

al., Re spo nde nt s.
M EM OR AN DU M AN D O RD ER Be fore the Court is [ 109] respondents' motion to di smiss. For the re asons set for th below, the Court g rants re spondents' motion. 1 I. Bac kgr ound This case beg an on De cembe r 13, 2006, with a ha beas pe tition brought by

Sami al Hajj as

" ne xt fr ie nd " fo r p e tit ion e r M uie e n A de e n Jam a l A de e n Abd Al F us a l Abd

Al Satta r. Se e Pe t. for Writ of Habe as Corpus [Docket Entry 1], at 2. S enior Judge H og an, in his capa city as coordinating judg e for

the Guanta

namo B ay

detainee case s, order ed that in all ca ses in which a detainee is repre sented in a pe tition for habea s corpus by a next friend, " counsel shall file a signe d authorization from the petitioner to pursue the ac tion or a dec laration by counsel that states that the petitioner dire ctly authorized counsel to pursue the ac tion and explains why counsel wa s unable to sec ure a signe d authorization." July 29, 2008 Orde r [Docket Entry 4], at 2.-2-

The Chief Judge of this Court appointed the Fe dera l Publi c De fende r for the Northe rn District of O h i o t o r e p r e s e n tA l S a t t ar i nA u g u s t2 0 0 8
. S e e A u g u s t5 , 2 0 0 8 O r d e r [ D o c k e tE n tr

y 7 ]
. In Se pte mbe r 2 00 8, the Court re ite rate d th e ne e d f

or c ouns e l to ob ta in p e tit ion e r' s a uth or izatio n to bringa habe as ac tion: "Counsel shall provide evide nce of their authority

to repre sent the deta inee as soon as pra cticable and, in any event, not later

than ten day s after

the conc lusion of a sec ond visit wit h a deta inee." September 11, 2008 O rder [Docket Entry

19], at 17. Petitioner' s counsel has satisfied neither r equire ment of Judge Hog an' s J uly 29, 2008 Orde r. Counsel has attempted to visit Al Sattar on no fe wer than five oc casions. On none of these oc casions has A l Sattar ag ree d to meet with counsel. Indeed, A l Sattar has thre atene d Gu an t an am o p er s o n n el wh o ad v i s edh i mth atco un s el wi s h edt o s p ea k wi thh i m . S ee R es p 't 's Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dis miss [ Docke t Entry 131], Decl. of Comm. Don A. Martin, ¶ 18. Neve rtheless, upon c ounsel' s motion, t he Court re cently order ed that " responde nts . . . take wh a te ve r s te ps are ne c e ssa ry to e ns ur e that c ouns e l f

or pe tit ion e r i s p e rm itt e d a

fa c e -t o- fa c e vis it with petitioner . . . ." September 2, 2009 O rder [Docket Entry

140], at 1. To give c ounsel the b es tch an ce o f m ee t i n g wi thAl S at t ar , th e C o urt s u b s equ en t l y

m o d i fi edi t s Or d er

atco un s el 's
re qu e st t o p re c lud e Gu anta namo p e rs onne l f

ro m in fo rm ingAl Satta

r t hat he ha d a

me e tin g wi th counsel. See September 18, 2009 O rder [Docket Entry

141], at 1 ("[R] espondents shall inform petitioner of the f

ollowing: ' You have a mee ting with Ms. Cleary and [name of tra

nslator].'" ); id. (" I f p e tit ion e r a sk s th e purp os e of the me e tin g or

wh om i t is wi th, re sp on de nts sh a ll d e c lin e to provide a ny information about the nature of the meetingor whom it is with."). Counsel' s hope was that if Al Sattar

arr ived at a me eting with counsel without knowing the meeting ' s purpose, he could be c onvinced to per mit represe ntation.-3-

Not so. Although Guantana mo personnel f

ollowed the Court' s direction, Al Sattar onc e ag ain re fused to mee t with counsel. See Pet' r' s Status R eport [Docket Entry 142], at 1-2. Mo re ov e r, Al Satta

r t or e up c ouns e l' s le tte r r e qu e sti ngtha t he re c on sid e r t

he de c isi on

no t to
me e t. I d. a t 2. Ne ve rt

he le ss, no w c ouns e l a sk s th a t " the Court sta y Mr . Abd Al Satta r' s c a se indefinitely

rathe r than g rant Responde nt's motion to dismis s the habe as ac tion." I d. at 3. The Court c ann ot gra

nt t hat r e qu e st. II. Ana lys is De s p i t e t h ei r d i l i gen tef

fo rt s , p et i t i o n er 's co un s el h as n o tco mp l i edwi thJ u d ge H o gan 's J uly 29, 2008 Orde r. Althoug h petitioner' s counsel has tra veled to Gua

ntanamo five times, eac h tim e Al Satta

r h a s r e fu se d to me e t w ithhis a pp ointe d c ouns e l, l e t a lon e a uth or ize c ouns e l to repr esent him. And petitioner' s counsel has a dduced no e vidence sug g esting that Al Sattar ag ree d to repre sentation without signingan author ization. I ndeed, A l Sattar has g iven no ind ic a tio n d

ur ingthe a lmo st thr e e -ye ar p e nd e nc y of his c a se that he wi sh e s th is h a be a s a c tio n to proce ed. Ac cording ly , the Court will gr ant re spondents' motion to di smiss wit hout prejudice
. See, e.g ., I dris v. Obama, Civ. No. 09-745 ( D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2009) ( dismiss ing pe tition for habea s corpus f or lac k of petitioner a

uthorization); Al-Hawa

wi v. Gates, Civ. No. 08-1645 ( D.D.C. J an 28, 2009) (same). Nor c an petitioner' s counsel re ly on next friend standing to proce ed on petitioner' s behalf. Next friend standingis available only wher e the r eal pa

rty in interest ca

nnot appea

r on his own behalf to prosecute the ac tion and wher e the ne x t friend is truly dedicated to the best intere sts of th e r ea l p arty

i ni n t er es t . S ee W h i t m o re v . Ark an s as , 4 9 5 U. S
. 1 4 9 , 1 6 3 -6 4 (1 9 9 0 ). P et i t i o n er 's counsel a sserts that al Ha

jj's a uthorization i s sufficient. B ut there is no indication her e that AlThe Court is simil arly unconvince d that al Hajj is " truly dedicated to the best intere sts of 2 the per son on whose beha lf he see ks to lit iga te . . . ." Whit more, 495 U.S. at 163. At the ve ry least, al Ha

jj has not demonstrated " the proprie ty of his status" a s next friend w ith any detail. I d. at1 6 4 ; s ee P et . fo r W ri to f H ab ea s C o rp u s at2 (d ec l ar at i o np ro v i d es n o d et ai l o f a l Ha j j 's relationship wit h Al Sattar). -4- Sattar is unable to " appea r on his own beha lf to prosec ute the ac tion." I d. at 163. Quite the opposite: Al Sattar has unequivoc ally reje cted r epre sentation on multipl e occ asions. And counsel' s speculation that Al Sattar mig ht suffer an inca pacity prec luding him from a cce ssing the Court's jurisdiction is just that -- speculation -- and he nce is insuffic ient to demonstrate that he "c annot appe ar on his own be half to prose cute the a ction." I d. 2 T h e r e f o r e , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D that Muieen Ade en Jamal Adeen Abd Al Fusa l Abd Al Satta r' s p e tit ion

fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s is DISMISSE D with out prejudice
. SO OR DE RE D
. / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: Oc tober 21, 2009