T h e H on or abl e Ja mes S. G wi n of t h e U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Cour t f or t h e N or t h er n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by 1/ d esi gnat i o n.

O n S e p te m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e C o u rt g ra n te d H a ji A b d u l W a h id ’s m o tio n to d ism iss h im se lf a s a p e tit io n e r in this 2/ a c tio n . [ See D oc. 10
. ] A cco rdingl y , Zi a- ur- R ahm an i s t he o nl y remaini ng pe t i t i o ner. -1 - UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - : HAJI AB DUL

WAHI D, e t al

. , : CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00320 : Pla int if fs , :

: vs. : OPI NI ON & ORDER : [R esolving Doc. Nos. 15 , 18 ] ROBERT GA TES, Secre tary of De fense , : et al
. , : : De fe nd ants
. : :

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - J AMES S. GW I

N, UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE: 1/ Wit h this case, Petitioner Z ia-ur- Rahman see ks a writ of ha beas c orpus to stop his detention at the B ag ram Air F orce base in Af g hanistan. [

2/ Doc. 13 .] The Respondents move to dismis s and say that controlling circ uit prece dent in Al Maqaleh v. G ates , 605 F.3d 84 ( D.C. Cir. 2010) , shows that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. [ Doc. 15 .] Petitioner Z ia-ur- Rahman opposes the Respondents’ motion, [ Doc. 19 ], and moves for lea ve to take jur isdictional discovery , [ Doc. 18 ]
. F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , th e Court G RA NT S the Respondents’ motion to dismiss and DE NI ES t h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o nf

o r l e av e t o t a k e j ur i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y. I. Bac kgr ound On Fe bruar

y 26, 2010, the Petitioner—a c itiz en of the I slamic Rep u b li c o f A f gh a n is ta n
— f il edCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

T he U ni t ed Stat es mi l i t ary m ai nt ai ns co nt rol of B ag r am t h r ou g h a l ease agreem ent wi t h t he A f ghan go vernm ent 3/ whi ch gr ant s t he U ni t ed St at es ex cl us i ve us e of t he bas e wi t hout i nt er f er enc e f r om t he A f

gh an gover nment an d whi ch c a n o n ly b e ter m ina te d b y the U n ited S ta te s. See [ D o c . 1 5 a t 7 (ci t i ng A l M aq al eh , 605 F. 3d a t 87 ).]

T he S usp en si o n C l au se p ro vid es that “t he p rivi l eg e o f t he w rit o f ha b ea s co rp us sha l l no t b e susp en d ed , un l ess 4/ whe n i n c as es of

r ebel l i on or i nv as i on t he publ i c s af et y may r equi r e i t
. ” U .S . C o n st. ar t. I, § 9 , cl. 2
. -2 - a petition for h ab ea s co rpus cha lleng ing his de tention by the United States military at B ag ram Airfield Military

Ba se in Afg hanistan. [ 3/ Doc. 15 .] The Petitioner (throug h next-friend Ha ji Noor Sa e e d) a lle g e s th a t th e Un ite d St a te s mi lit ary c a ptu re d h im d

ur inga night r a id o f h is h ome in De c e mbe r 2 00 8 a

nd tha t he “ ha s bee n he ld fo r mor e tha n two y e ars wi tho ut c ha

rg e , w ith ou t a c c e ss to c ouns e l, a

nd wi tho ut a

ny jud ic ia l r e vie w o r i nd e pe nd e nt a nd imp art ia l a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e ss throug h which he can c halleng e his illeg al ar rest and de tention.” [ Do c . 1 9 at 3 .] He sa y s he poses no threat to the United States or to the coa lition forces. [ Do c . 1 9 at 6
. ] Be tween May and Decembe r 2010, this case was stay ed pending the decision in Al Maqaleh
. [Docs. 8 , 9 .] I n Dec ember 2010, the Petitioner filed an Amended Petition alleg ing that the fac ts of his situation s o materia lly di ff er fr o m the fa cts in Al Maqaleh t h at t h e t h re e- p ro n g Boumedie ne analy sis—as implemented in Al Maqaleh —f a vo rs e xten din g the Sus pe ns ion Cla us e to h im. 4/ [ Doc. 13 ]; B o u m e di e n e v . B us h , 5 5 3 U.S. 723 (2008) . The Responde nts—arguing that the Court lacks subjec t-matter jurisdiction over the ca se—moved to dismiss. [ Doc. 15
. ] II. Le ga l St anda r d A c h al l en ge t o s u

b j ec t -m at t er

j u ri s d i ct i o n “f

o cu s es o n t h e co u rt ’s p o we r t o h ea r t h e p l ai n t i ff 's claim, .
. . [and] imposes on the court a n aff irmative oblig ation to ensure that it is actingwithin the scope of i t s j u ri sdictional authority .” Gran d Lo dge of F ra te rn al O rd

e r o f P oli c e v . A sh c ro

ft , 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D .C. 2001) . And “a lthough a court must acc ept as true all the fa ctualCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-3 - alleg ations contained in the c omplaint when re viewinga motion to dism iss[ , ]
. . . [t he] factua l alleg ations in the complaint will bear c loser scrutiny [t han is involved] in r esolving a 12(b) (6) motion . . . .” W right v. Foreign Serv. G rievanc e Bd. , 503 F. Supp. 2d 163, 170 (D.D.C. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). III . A nal ys is A. TheLe

ga l F ra me wor k Wit h this c ase, this Court examines the availability of the wr it of habea s corpus to noncitizens he ld b y the Un ite d St a te s b ut h e ld b e y on d th e so ve re ig n te rr ito ry of the Un ite d St a te s. Un til Bo um e die nev . B us h , t h e w r i ts e e m e d u n a v a i l a b l e t o n o n c i t i z e n s h e l d

o u t s i d e U n i t e d

S t a t e s t e r r i t o r y. I n Johnson v. Eise ntrager , 339 U.S. 763 (1950) , tw e nty -o ne Ge rm an natio na ls p e tit ion e d f or wr its of habeas corpus challeng ing their post-arr est detention by the Unit ed States followingGer many ’s
surr e nd e r. No ne we re Un ite d St a te s c iti zen s, and no ne ha d b e e n a

rr e ste d o r h e ld i n th e Un ite d St a te s. I n Eisentrager , the Supreme Court he ld that the writ was unavailable to en em y aliens beyond the
sovere ign te rritory

of the United States. In justify ing this holding , the Court note d that trial of the writ “would hamper the w ar e ffor t and bring aid and comf

ort to the ene my .” Id. at 779. The Court also found that such a proce eding could fetter a field commander by diverting his attention from the
overse as military

offe nsive to the leg al issues at home. Id. Eisentrager

rema ined controlling until a seri e s o f Court decisions and Cong ressional re action to t h o s e dec isions beginningwith Ra su l v . B us h , 542 U.S. 466 (2004) , wher e the Court found jurisdiction for a ha

beas c halleng e to detention at the Guantanamo Ba y Naval Ba se in Cuba. Reac ting, Cong ress a dopted, and Pre sident Bush sig ned, the De tainee T reatment Act of 2005, Pub. L . N o. 10 9- 14 8, 11 9 St a t. 2 73 9 ( 20 05 ) ( c od if ie d at 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e) (2006) ). Am o n g o t h erCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-4 - things, that Ac t provid ed t h at “n o court . . . shall have jurisdiction to hear or c onsider . . . an
a pp lic a tio n f

or a wr it of ha

be a s c or pu s fi le d by
. . . a

n a lie n d e ta ine d b y

the De pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e at Guantana

mo Ba y . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e) (2006) . Then the Supre me Court decide d Hamdan

v . R um sfe ld , 548 U.S. 557 (2006) , and held that the 2005 la w di d n o t s t ri p fede ral c ourts of jurisdiction to hear pe titions for wr its of habea s corpus on behalf of Guantanamo detainee s that were pending at the time of the law’s enac tment. F urther r esponding to the Hamdan de c isi on , Co ng re ss passed the Military

Commi ssions Act of 2006, Pub. L . No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006) , and closed a ny statutory claim of ha

beas jurisdiction. I n d e c i d i n g t h i s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s d e t e n t i o n a t t h e B a g r a m A i r B a s e an d a t it s Ba g ram The ater I nternment Fa cility , the Court e x amines whether it ha s habea s corpus jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Boumedie ne larg ely controls the ana ly sis. I n Boumedie ne , the Court acknow ledg ed that statute-base d habea s jurisdiction had been ended by the Military

Commi ssions Ac t. No ne the le ss, the Court e xami ne d wh e the r the Sus pe ns ion Cla us e a ff or de d a c on sti tut ion a l ba sis for jurisdiction irre spective of whateve r statutory

jurisdiction ex isted. Boumedie ne , 553 U.S. 723
. The S upreme Court analy

zed three fac tors to decide whether the Suspension Clause extended t o e n e m y a l i e n s b e i n g h e l d a tG u an t an a m o B ay: (1) the c itiz enship and st atus of t he detainee a nd the ad e qu ac yof t hepr oc ess t h ro u gh which that status deter

mination was made, ( 2) the na tu re of thesites wher e appre hension and then detention took place , and (3) the prac tic al o bs tac le s inhere nt in r e so lvi ngthe de ta ine e s e nti tle me nt t o th e wr it o f h a be a s c or pu s. Id. at 766 (empha ses adde d). After examining past pre cede nt, the Court emphasized the prac tical ef fec ts tha t would run from extending ha

beas jurisdiction: the “c ommon thread” uniting these prec edents wa s “the idea that questions of extraterritoria lity turn on objective f

actor s and pra ctical c oncer ns, not formalism.” Id. a tCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-5 - 764 . T he g e og ra

ph ic re a c h of ha

be a s cor pu s shou ld em

plo y a pr a c tic a l mu lti -f

a c tor ba lanc ingte st, not a simple and cate g orica l a naly sis of the location whe re the detention occ urre d. See id. at 751-54
. I n Boumedie ne , the Court found that the Suspension Clause applied extraterr itorially to the detainee s beca

use, among other fac tors, the revie w proce ss the Guantana mo detainee s rec eived wa s inadequate. Perha

ps more important, Gua

ntanamo wa s “within the constant ju ri s d i ct i on of the United S tates” a

nd extending habe as jurisdiction to Guantanamo was not unduly impractica l. Id. a t 767-68
. I n Al Maqaleh , the D.C. Circui t applied the Boumedie ne analy sis to a case near ly identical to t his c a se and

fo un d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t have ha

be a s juri sd ic tio n to he ar a c ha lle ng e to detention by

three aliens deta ined at B ag ram. Al Maqaleh , 605 F.3d at 99 . I n consideringthe three Boumedie ne fac tors, the Al Maqaleh c o u rt f i r s t r e j e c t e d t h e s u g g e s tio n th a t Boumedie ne sim ply require d deter

mination of defac to sovere ignty
. Id
. at 95
. I nstead, the circ uit used the multi-factor approa ch identified in Boumedie ne . As to the first fa ctor, t h e court concluded that the “ adequa cy of proc ess” pr ong favor ed
e xten din g ha

be a s juri sd ic tio n to the B a g ra m de ta ine e s b e c a

us e the y re c e ive d ev e n les s r e vie w o f t he ir detention than had be en af forde d to the detainee s in Boumedie ne . Howeve r, the Al Maqaleh court found the re maining two Boumedie ne pr on g s, and e sp e c ia lly the thi rd pr on g , w e ig he d “ he a vil y ” in favor of the United States’ positi o n . The Al Maqaleh court re asoned that the “natur e of the site” prongdid not support ex tending h ab ea s j urisdiction to the Ba g ram de tainees be cause the United States maintained no sovere ignty over Ba g ram and the United States’ prese nce in A fg hanistan wa s welcome d by

the Afg han g overnme nt. Ba g ram did not a pproxi mate the United States’ long- standing and unendingcontrol of Gua ntanamo. Id. at 96
.Case No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-6 - Simi lar l y , t h e “ p r a c t i c a l o b s t a c l e s ” p r o n g
—t h e m o s ti mp o rt an tp r o n g f o r t h e D
. C
. C i r c uit Court—did not fa

vor g iving habea s relief to the Ba g ram detainee s. Afg hanistan wa s in a theate r of
war , wher e conc erns of

conductingtrials and issuing the writ at a fac ility exposed to the “vag arie s of war” were prese nt. Id

at 97 . A c c or din g ly , th e D. C. C ir c uit dis mis se d th e c a se fo r l a c k o f s ub je c tmatter jurisdiction.

B. Motion to Dismiss for L ack of Subjec t-Matter Jurisdiction I n th e pr e se nt c a se , th e thr e e -s te p c on sti tut ion a l ana ly sis that th e D. C. C ir c uit Court us e d in A l Ma q aleh c o n tr o ls
. T h is d e c is io nis , th e r e f o r e , c o mp e ll e d

b y th e e s ta b li s h e d p r e c e d e n t o f Al Maqaleh —the Court conclude s that the Suspension Clause does not e x tend to this Petitioner and that thi s Cour t has no su

bje c t- matte r jur isd ic tio n ove r the c a se . Th e Pe tit ion e r’ s new ly pr e se nte d f a c ts,
even when taken in the light most favor able to him, are too simi lar to wa rra nt a diffe rent c onclusion than that of Al Maqaleh
. 1. Ad e qu a c y of Pr oc e ss Be cause the Al Maqaleh court found that the “ade quacy of proc ess” prong supported the extens ion of the Suspension Clause to the Ba g ram de tainees, this Court considers w hether the Petitioner’s fac ts a lter the Al Maqaleh ana ly sis in a way that be c ome s d e te rm inativ e . T he y do no t. The Petitioner spe n d s the bulk of his Amended Petition descr ibing the ina dequac ies of the
c ur re nt, “ wo e fu lly

ina c c ur a te ,” re vie w boa

rd s but doe s not al le g e that the c ur re nt r e vie w p ro c e ss i s
w o r s e th an th e p r o c e s s e xamine d in the Al Maqaleh decision. [ Doc. 19 at 9-22 .] I n fac t, the Pe tit ion e r a c kn ow le dg e s th a t the c ur re nt r e vie w b oa

rd s are a “ marg ina l im

pr ov e me nt o ve r [tho se in place during the Al Maqaleh decision],” [ Do c . 1 9 at 8 ], and that “ [the ] pr oc e dure s h a ve a ll the same fundame ntal flaws a s the D.C. Circuit identified,” [ Do c . 1 9 at 3 ]. Though the Petitioner a n d theCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-7 - Respondents disag ree on the ac tual eff ects of the new Bagr am proc esses, those pr ocedur es do not compel a dif

fer ent conc lusion than Al Maqaleh
. Be cause the Petitioner makes no a rgument that he is diffe rently situated than the pe titioners in Al Maqaleh (this Petitioner is a non-U.S. citizen held as an e nemy alien), this Court share s the Al Maqaleh conclusion: the “ade quacy of proc ess” pr ongweig hs in [ the] P etitioner’s fa vor but is not strong enoug h to offset the othe r leg s of the Boumedie ne c on sti tut ion a l ana ly sis
. 2. Natur e of

the Site The Al Maqaleh court ba sed its analy sis of the “nature of the site” prongon the location of the detaine es’ a

pprehe nsion, the sovere ignty the United States held ove r the site of de tentio n , and wh e the r t he Un ite d St a te s w a s p re se nt at th e loc a tio n o f t he de te nti on

in t he fa c e of

a ho stile g overnme nt. Al Maqaleh , 605 F.3d. at 97
. The P etitioner does not alleg e that these deter minative fac tors have c hang ed. He does, howe ver, quote statements made by a United States off

icial to show the Un ite d St a te s in te nd s to g a in t he a ttr ib ut es of

so ve re ig nty

ov e r B a g ra

m by oc c up yingit indefinitely . For

example, the Petitioner cites a quote f rom the De puty

Secre tary

of De fense for Detaine e Policy

that the United States wishes to maintain control of Ba g ram ind ef

i n itely , but he fa ile d to fi nis h th e De puty Se c re tary ’s qu otatio n: “ U. S. f or c e s w ill e ve ntu a lly

tr ans iti on

thi s additional detention ca

pacity to the [Afgha

n Gover nment] . . . .” [ Do c . 1 5- 2 at 3
. ] I n addition, the Petitioner’s own lang uag e demonstrates the uncer tainty of his position: “ [t he b a s e ] may be h e ld in d e f

in it e ly , ” an d

“ [d e ta in e e s ] may be subject to indefinite dete ntion.” [ Doc. 19 at 22, 25 .] An d the Pe tit ion e r co nte nd s the un se ttl e d time lin e of tr ans fe rr ing c on tr ol of B a g ra m to the Afg han g overnme nt is further e vidence of the United S t at es ’ i ntent to control Ba g ram indefinitely . [ Doc. 19 at 23
. ]Case No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-8 - The Court re cognizes certain inconsistenc ies about—and the unsettled nature of—the United State s’ s in te nti on s f

or B a g ra m. B ut t he la c k o f a

c e rt a in e nd -d a te is not su ff ic ie nt to e xten d th e wr it of habe as cor

pus to detainee s. The Al Maqaleh court, whe n criticizing a simil ar position, cautioned that “such a

n interpre tation would seem to cre ate the pote ntial for the e x trater ritorial extension of the Suspension Cl ause to nonc itiz ens held in a ny United States milit ary fac ility in the world, and pe rhaps to an undeter

minable number of

other United States- lease d fac iliti es as we ll.” Al Maqaleh , 605 F.3d at 95
. I ndeed, in the two year s since the Al Maqaleh holding, the rele vant inquires for the “nature of the site” pr ong rema in near ly unchang ed: the Petitioner wa s appre hended a broad, the United States’ pre sence in Ba g ram is by permission of t he Afg han gover nment, and the United States makes no claims of sover eig nty over Bagr am i n conflict with the Af g han g overnme nt. Put s imply , the Ba g ram oc cupation still differs too greatly from the Guantana

mo oc cupation for

the ‘nature of the sites’ prongto weig h in the Petitioner’s favor when measure d ag ainst the circ umstance that exi sted in Boumedie ne : The United States ha s maintained its total control of Guanta namo B ay

for ove r a ce n tu ry , ev en i n t h e fa ce o f ah o s t i l e go v ern m en tm ai n t ai n i n g de jur e sovere ignty

over the proper ty
. I n Bag ra

m . . . th e re is n o in dic a tio n o f a ny int e nt t o o c c up y

the ba se wi th p e rm ane nc e , n or

is the re ho sti lity on the pa rt of the “ ho st” c ountr

y . . . . Whil e it i s c e rt a inl y

re a lis tic to ass ert that

the Un ite d St a te s h a s defac to sovere ignty over Gu anta namo, the same sim

ply is n ot t ru e wi th r e sp e c t to B a g ra m. Id. at 97
. Acc ording ly , while the Petitioner’s conte ntions move this C ourt to find the “nature of the sit e ” pr on g pe rh a

ps we ig hs le ss str on g ly

in f a vo r o f t he Re sp on de nts ’ p os iti on , th is s e c on d p ro ngsti ll weig hs ag ainst the application of the Suspension Clause to the Petiti oner. 3. Practica l Obstacles The third prong , the “pr actica l obstacles” pr ong , most favors the Gove rnment’s position thatCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-9 - the Suspension Clause does not extend habeas c orpus protec tion to the Petit ioner. The Al Maqaleh court’s “pra ctical obstacles” evaluation focused on B ag ram’s loc ation in a theate r of wa r and “ in a territory under ne ither the d

e facto nor dejure sovere ignty of the United States a

nd within the territory of anothe r dejur e sovere ign.” Al Maqaleh , 605 F.3d a t 98 . It r e ma ins tr ue that B a g ra

m, “indee d the entire nation of Afg hanistan, ” i s an ac tive war zone and within the sovere ign te rritory of anothe r nation. Id. at 97 . Moreove r, in closing dicta the Al Maqaleh court noted that while the third prong weig hed over whelming ly

in favor of the United States, the prongwould be eve n more skewe d in the Respondents’ fa vor if the pe titioners had bee n Afg han citizens. Id. at 99 . Z ia-urRahman is just such a petitioner—he ’s an Af g han Citiz en. The Petitioner al s o p o ints out t hat the United States a ppare ntly cooper ated with fifty -two Afg han cr iminal procee dings t h at h av e occur red at Ba g ram usingAfg han judg es and A fg han p ro s ecutor s in the last two y ear s. [ Doc. 19 at 26. ] T h e s e c a s e s p r o v id e s o me s u p p o rt for the Petitioner’s argument that habea s proce eding s might proc eed e ven amidst the Afghan turmoil. But this e vidence is insuff

icient to disting uish the fac tual background of this c ase fr o m t h e f actua l backg round the D.C. Circuit Court revie wed in Al Maqaleh . I f an y t h i n g , the Afg han cr iminal proce eding s support the proposition the United States g overnme nt is attempting to transfe r control
o f B a g r am t o t h e A f

g h ang o v e r

n m e n tm o r e qu i c k l y. As at t he ti me of the Al Maqaleh decision, B ag ram is in a hig hly active w ar- zone and re mains
un de r t he so ve re ig nty

of the Af g ha n g ov e rnme nt wh e re the same , if no t mo re , “ pr a c tic a l ob sta c le s”
are prese nt. The over

whelming weig ht of

the “pr actica l obstacles” pr ong , considere d along side the analy sis of the “nature of the site” prong , lead this Court t o the same c onclusion of Al Maqaleh : th is Court do e s n ot h ave jur isd ic tio n to e nte rt a in t his ha be a s c la im.Case No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-1 0- C. M oti on for J ur isd ic tio na l D isc ov e ry The Petitioner also seeks jurisdictional discovery in sever al disputed are as: (1) the adequa cy of the B ag ram de tainee’ s review proce ss as a substitute for habeas review; ( 2) the g overnme nt’s plans to h old pr iso ne rs a t B a g ra

m in de fi nit e ly

and the c a te g or ie s o f B a g ra

m de ta ine e s w ho may

be he ld indefinitely

(including whether

the Petitioner falls into these ca teg ories); a

nd (3) the ex i stence of prac tical obstacle s standing in the w ay of habe as jurisdiction. [ Doc. 18 at 3-4
. ]

“ A d ist ri c t c ourt a c ts w ith in i ts d isc re tio n to deny dis c ov e ry wh e n th e pla int if f h a s f a ile d to
s h o w th a t d is c o v e r

y w o u ld a lt e r th e ju

r is d ic ti o n a l an a ly sis.” Heroth v . Ki ng do m o f Sa ud i A ra bia , 331 F. App’ x 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ; cf. Ab u A li v . A sh c ro ft , 35 0 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.C.C. 2004) (g rantingjurisdictional discovery beca use “if the fac ts alleg ed in the Petition wer e shown to be true, there would be habe as jurisdiction”). The Petitioner’s r equeste d discovery would not alter this Court’s jurisdictional analy sis and will therefor e be de nied. First, the Al Maqaleh c ourt a lr e a dy de te rm ine d th a t a

le sse r r e vie w p ro c e ss was insuffic ient to ma

ke the writ of habea s corpus available to B ag ram de tainees. 605 F.3d at 96
. Second, the Petitioner’s r equest to di scover proof of the United States’ intention to hold Ba g ram a nd
cer tain detainee s indefinitely would also fail to alter the Al Maqaleh analy sis. As discussed above, indefiniteness alone will not suffice to a lter the “natur e of the site” ana ly sis without also addressing other pe rtinent fac tors: the United States does not exercise de facto sovere ignty over B ag ram, doe s not claim to hold sovereig nty over B ag ram, a

nd is occupy

ing B ag ram with the a

pproval of the Af g ha n g ov e rnme nt. F ina lly , the Pe tit ion e r’ s re qu e st fo r dis c ov e ry re g ard ingAf g ha n c ivi lia n tr ia ls would not alter the pe rtinent fac tors in the Al Maqaleh ana ly sis of the “ pr a c tic a l ob sta c le s” prong —namely the locatio n o f the military base in que stion and whether it was in a theater ofCase No. 1:10-CV- 0320

G w i n , J.

-1 1- war —and likewise w ould not alter the constitutional analy sis. I n sum, Petit ioner “ has fa iled to show th a t d is c o v e r

y w o u ld a lt e r th e ju

r is d ic ti o n a l an a ly s is , ” an d th e Co u rt d e n ie s h is r e qu e st. Heroth , 33 1 F . App ’x at 3
. IV. Conclusion F or the se re a so ns , th e Court G RA NT S the Respondent’s motion to dismiss for l ac kof subject-matter

jurisdiction and DE NI ES t h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o nf o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r

y.

I T I S SO ORDERED. Date d: Jun e 26 , 2 01 2 s/ Jame s S. Gwin J A M E S S
. G W IN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE