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
P etitioner Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani national detained at the United States Naval Station at Guant a namo 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 . W hile the appeal was pending, Mr. Pa racha 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 ha d ended, and a2

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, o n 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 i ssuing 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 , Civ il 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 r elease by the Periodic Review Board.”
Order at 1 , Paracha v. Biden , No. 20

- 5039 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 10, 2021). As a result, t he Court now has before it two habeas petitions filed by Mr. Paracha, each raising what appear to be identical arguments about the U.S. tr oop 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
Parac ha 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 Action3

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 Disco very [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 concern ing the merits of his pending petitions and represented that he does not oppose consolidating Paracha I with Paracha II

. Id . at 1

- 4. Responde nt s propose d 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 F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 42(a). A district court has “ b road discretion ” in deciding whether to consolidate cases , which it may do “as a matter of convenience and economy in judicial administration

. ” 9 C HARLES A LAN W RIGHT & A RTHUR R. M ILLER , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 2383 ( 3 d ed. 2021 ). Based on the record in both cases, the Court concludes that consolidation of these matters is appropriate to address common iss ues 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 adop t a similar schedule of deadlines.

Finally, Mr. Paracha filed a Motion to Lif t 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 rule d on the motion for limited remand. The D.C. Circuit granted that motion on4

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 ; i t 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 followi ng deadlines shall govern future proceedings:
1. On or before January 14 , 2022, r espondents 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. F ile 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. F ile 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, p etitioner shall file any reply in support of the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Dkt. No. 11], Motion for More5 Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 12], and Renewed Motion for Discovery [Dkt. No. 13] in Civil Action No. 21

- 2567;
3. On or before January 2 8 , 2022, p etitioner shall file a response t o 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, r espondents shall file any reply in support of any motion to dismiss the c laims 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/