UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

RASHID AWADH RASHID AL-UWAID AH, : e t al . , : : P e ti ti one r s, :

: v. : Ci vi l A cti on No. 05 -16 68 (GK) : GEORG E W. BUSH , et al. , : : Re spo nde nt s. :

OR DE R On May 23, 2006, Respondents filed a N otice of Tr ansfe r of Petit ioner and Wit hdraw al of Re qu e st f or De sig natio n o f C e rt a in I

nf or matio n a s Pr ote c te d Inf

or matio n [D kt. #3 7]. R e sp on de nts indicated that “Rashid Awa dh Rashid Al-Uwa idah had be en tra nsfer red to the G overnme nt of the King dom of Saudi Arabia and re lease d from United States custody .” On Ma y 24, 2006, the Court issued an Or der to Show Cause [Dkt. #40] requiring the par ties to indicate why this case should not be dismiss ed as moot given Petitioner’ s transfe r. The Petitioner r esponded, a rguing that his habeas claims should not be dismiss ed bec ause he is entitled to discovery on whether he is beingdetained by Saudi Arabia at the behest of the United States; he a lso argued that his non-habe as cla ims are not mooted by

a tra nsfer and should not be dismissed. The Gove rnment re sponded that the ha beas petition should be dis missed as m oot in light of the tra nsfer , and in light of

the fa ct that Petitioner’s counsel c onsented to and r equeste d acc eler ation of his transfe r to Saudi Arabia

. Petitioner offe rs only

two justifications for his reque st for jurisdictional discover y . First, he argues that there has bee n no sug g estion that he wa s held at Gua ntanamo B ay

beca use he violate d the laws of Saudi A rabia

. Fr om that statement, which appea rs to be acc urate , Petitioner then makes-2-

a lea p of log ic to the conc lusion that because he wa s not held at Guanta namo B ay for violation of Sa ud i Ar a bia n laws , he is no w be ing de ta ine d at th e be he st o f t he Un ite d St a te s G ov e rnme nt. Th is log ic make s n o s e ns e . It do e s n ot f oll owthat be c a

us e he wa s h e ld at Gua

nta namo B ay a s an “ e ne my combatant,” that “ther e is no appar ent reason for his continued detention -- w ithout formal char g es -- oth e r t ha n it is at th e be he st o f t

he Un ite d St a te s G ov e rnme nt. ” Pe t.’ s Re sp . to Co urt ’s Ord e r t o Show Cause at 6. Second, Petiti o n er argues that there is “evidenc e of a pattern of

conduct by Respondent of tra

nsfer ring detainee s to evade jurisdiction.” I d. P eti tioner off ers no supporting evidenc e, and relies on only a 2006 law r eview a

rticle in the Unive rsity

of Richmond L aw Revie w. B ut t he se argume nts fa il t o p e rs ua de the Court

. Petitioner relies he avily on the compre hensive opinion of J udg e Bates of this Court in Abu Ali v. Ashcrof

t, 350 F. Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004), in which those petitioners we re a llowed limited

and sp e c if ic jur isd ic tio na l di sc ov e ry . Ho we ve r, the fa c tua l ba c kg ro un d in Ab u Al i w a s d ra matic a lly differ ent than that pre sented in this case

. In t h i s c a s e , P e t i t i o n e r

p r e s e n t s n o f

a c t s i n s u p p o rto f h i s r e qu e s tf

o r j ur i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r

y. I n Abu Ali, the detaine e was an American citiz en who wa s never held at Gua

ntanamo B ay ; he was

arr ested a nd immediately

imprisoned in Saudi Ara

bia; three other Americ ans who wer e ar rested at about the same time as Abu Ali wer e ex tradited withi n a mont h to the United States, wher eas he was not; numer ous communications wer e made by Abu Ali’s par ents, who we re the petitioners, with the FB I , the State Depa

rtment, Saudi officia ls, and the United States Consul i n Saudi Arabia who g ave tot a lly c on tr a dic tor

y state me nts a s to wh e the r the Un ite d State s wa s or wa s no t st ill int e re ste d in his d et enti on; in their paper s, Abu Ali’s pare nts identified specific individuals who were members of the FB I , the State Depa rtment, and the United States Attorney ’s Offic e who c o mmunicatedPe tit ion e r m a de it c le ar i n his Re sp on se that he did no t w ish his no n- ha

be a s c la ims 1 dismiss ed. I d. at 8. The Government did not respond to P etitioner’s a rgument, and ther efor e, the Court c on c lud e s th a t it

ha s w a ive d a

ny ob je c tio n to g oin g fo rw ard

wi th t he no n- ha be a s c la ims

. -3- information to them that was dire ctly rele vant to the questi on of t he invol vement of the United States in Abu Ali’s detention. Fina lly , and perhaps mos t convincing of all, the e vidence submitt ed by Abu Al i ’s par ents was not re butted by the Gover

nment. On this recor d, J udg e B ates c oncluded that Petitioner had pre sented

at least some e vidence sug g esting that (i) the United States initiated the ar rest of Abu Ali in Saudi A rabia ; (ii) the United States has interrog a te d Abu

Al i in Sa ud i A ra bia ; ( iii ) t

he Un ite d St a te s is controlling events in Saudi Arabia ; ( iv) the United States is keeping Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia to avoid c onstitut ional scrutiny by Americ an c ourt s; ( v) S aud i Ara

bia wo uld imm e diate ly

re le a se Ab u A li t o United S t at es officials upon a re quest by the United States g overnme nt; and (vi) Abu Ali ha s been subjected to tor ture with the kn ow le dg e of

the Un ite d St a te s. 350 F. Supp.2d at 67. This case presents no such scena rio. Nor ha s Petiti oner of fer ed any specific evidenc e that raises e ven a c olorable c laim that he is being detained at the behest of the United States. WHEREFORE , it is t his 2nd day of F ebrua

ry 2009, here by OR DE RE D , that the habe as cla ims of Petiti oner a re dismissed ; and it is further OR DE RE D , that a Status Confere nce shall be held on F ebruary 25, 2009 at 10: 15 a.m . as to the non-habe as cla ims of Petitioner. Counsel are to submit on F ebruary 20, 2009, a Joi nt Status 1 Re po rt a s to ho w the y

wi shto p ro c e e d o n th e no n- ha be a s c la ims

. / s / Glady s Kessler Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Copies via ECF t o all couns el of recor d