UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

SAIFULLAH PARACHA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 04-2022 (PLF)

)

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

)

SAIFULLAH PARACHA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2567 (PLF)

)

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani national detained at the United States 

Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has filed two petitions for habeas corpus before this 

Court. On January 23, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Paracha’s first petition in Civil Action 

No. 04-2022 (“Paracha I”). Paracha v. Trump, 453 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D.D.C. 2020). Mr. Paracha 

appealed that ruling. While the appeal was pending, Mr. Paracha moved “for a limited remand 

to the district court for consideration of issues relevant to his habeas petition that were not 

available at the time the petition was filed, litigated, and decided,” namely, the withdrawal of 

U.S. troops from Afghanistan and announcement that the war in Afghanistan had ended, and a 
2

determination by the Periodic Review Board (“PRB”) clearing Mr. Paracha for release. 

Appellant’s Motion for Limited Remand and Continuance of the Stay of His Appeal at 1-2, 

Paracha v. Biden, No. 20-5039 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 4, 2021). Meanwhile, on October 2, 2021, Mr.

Paracha filed his second petition for habeas corpus in Civil Action No. 21-2567 (“Paracha II”), 

arguing that the same developments identified in his motion for limited remand warrant issuing a 

writ of habeas corpus. Petition for Habeas Corpus and Other Relief, Civil Action No. 21-2567

[Dkt. No. 1] at 4-5. The petition in Paracha II also raises several claims for “other relief.” Id. 

at 6-11. 

On November 12, 2021, the Court held Paracha II in abeyance pending a ruling 

from the court of appeals on the motion for limited remand in Paracha I. Paracha v. Biden, Civil 

Action No. 21-2567, 2021 WL 5279613 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2021). On December 10, 2021, the 

court of appeals remanded Paracha I “so appellant can present to the district court in the first 

instance his arguments concerning the withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan and 

the announced end of the war there, and his clearance for release by the Periodic Review Board.” 

Order at 1, Paracha v. Biden, No. 20-5039 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 10, 2021). As a result, the Court now

has before it two habeas petitions filed by Mr. Paracha, each raising what appear to be identical 

arguments about the U.S. troop withdrawal and end of hostilities in Afghanistan and the PRB 

determination. 

On December 14, 2021, Mr. Paracha filed a Supplement to the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 563] in Civil Action No. 04-2022, in which he acknowledged that 

Paracha I and Paracha II were “likely to be consolidated” and explained that he “intends for this 

Supplement to serve as the brief in both cases and does not intend to file multiple, parallel 

briefing if the cases are consolidated.” Id. at 1 n.1. Mr. Paracha also has pending in Civil Action 
3

No. 21-2567 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Other Relief [Dkt. No. 1], a Motion for 

Order to Show Cause Re Discovery [Dkt. No. 11], a Motion for More Definite Statement [Dkt. 

No. 12], and a Renewed Motion for Discovery [Dkt. No. 13]. 

On December 22, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Status Report [Dkt. No. 18] in 

Civil Action No. 21-2567, setting forth their respective proposals to govern further proceedings. 

In that report, Mr. Paracha reiterated arguments concerning the merits of his pending petitions

and represented that he does not oppose consolidating Paracha I with Paracha II. Id. at 1-4. 

Respondents proposed that the Court consolidate the two actions and enter a schedule for 

briefing on Mr. Paracha’s pending petitions and motions. Id. at 7.

Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may consolidate 

separately filed cases that involve a common question of law or fact. See FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). 

A district court has “broad discretion” in deciding whether to consolidate cases, which it may do 

“as a matter of convenience and economy in judicial administration.” 9 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT 

& ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2383 (3d ed. 2021). Based on the 

record in both cases, the Court concludes that consolidation of these matters is appropriate to 

address common issues and in the interests of judicial economy. The Court also concludes that 

the briefing schedule proposed by respondents in the December 22, 2021 Joint Status Report is

reasonable and will adopt a similar schedule of deadlines.

Finally, Mr. Paracha filed a Motion to Lift Stay [Dkt. No. 15] in Civil Action 

No. 21-2567, asking the Court to vacate its November 12, 2021 memorandum opinion and order 

holding Paracha II in abeyance. The Court’s November 12, 2021 memorandum opinion and 

order provided that Civil Action No. 21-2567 would be held in abeyance only until the D.C. 

Circuit ruled on the motion for limited remand. The D.C. Circuit granted that motion on 
4

December 10, 2021. Civil Action No. 21-2567 is no longer held in abeyance and Mr. Paracha’s 

motion to lift the stay is moot.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Civil Action No. 04-2022 shall be consolidated with Civil Action 

No. 21-2567 for all purposes; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings in Civil Action No. 21-2567 are no 

longer held in abeyance; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Lift Stay [Dkt. No. 15] in Civil Action 

No. 21-2567 is DENIED as moot; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the following deadlines shall govern future 

proceedings:

1. On or before January 14, 2022, respondents shall:

a. File a response to the Supplement to the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 563] in Civil Action No. 04-2022;

b. File any motion to dismiss the claims for “other relief” asserted in 

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1] in Civil Action 

No. 21-2567;

c. File a response to the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Dkt. 

No. 11], Motion for More Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 12], and 

Renewed Motion for Discovery [Dkt. No. 13] in Civil Action 

No. 21-2567;

2. On or before January 21, 2022, petitioner shall file any reply in support of 

the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Dkt. No. 11], Motion for More 
5

Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 12], and Renewed Motion for Discovery 

[Dkt. No. 13] in Civil Action No. 21-2567;

3. On or before January 28, 2022, petitioner shall file a response to any

motion to dismiss the claims for “other relief” asserted in the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1] in Civil Action No. 21-2567; and

4. On or before February 4, 2022, respondents shall file any reply in support

of any motion to dismiss the claims for “other relief” asserted in the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1] in Civil Action

No. 21-2567.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: December 30, 2021

/s/