Case Name: In Re: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-27
Citations: 601 F. Supp. 2d 129
Docket Number: Misc. No. 08-mc-0442 (TFH); Civil Action Nos. 02-cv-0828, 04-cv-1136, 04-cv-1164, 04-cv-1194, 04-cv-1254, 04-cv-1937, 04-cv-2022, 04-cv-2046, 04-cv-2215, 05-cv-0023, 05-cv-0247, 05-cv-0270, 05-cv-0280, 05-cv-0329, 05-cv-0359, 05-cv-0392, 05-cv-0492, 05-cv-0520, 05-cv-0526, 05-cv-0569, 05-cv-0634, 05-cv-0748, 05-cv-0763, 05-cv-0764, 05-cv-0877, 05-cv-0883, 05-cv-0889, 05-cv-0892, 05-cv-0993, 05-cv-0994, 05-cv-0999, 05-cv-1048, 05-cv-1124, 05-cv-1189, 05-cv-1220, 05-cv-1244, 05-cv-1347, 05-cv-1353, 05-cv-1429, 05-cv-1457, 05-cv-1487, 05-cv-1490, 05-cv-1497, 05-cv-1504, 05-cv-1506, 05-cv-1555, 05-cv-1592, 05-cv-1601, 05-cv-1607, 05-cv-1623, 05-cv-1638, 05-cv-1645, 05-cv-1646, 05-cv-1678, 05-cv-1971, 05-cv-1983, 05-cv-2088, 05-cv-2104, 05-cv-2185, 05-cv-2186, 05-cv-2199, 05-cv-2249, 05-cv-2349, 05-cv-2367, 05-cv-2371, 05-cv-2378, 05-cv-2379, 05-cv-2380, 05-cv-2384, 05-cv-2385, 05-cv-2386, 05-cv-2387, 05-cv-2479, 06-cv-1668, 06-cv-1684, 06-cv-1690, 06-cv-1758, 06-cv-1761, 06-cv-1765, 06-cv-1766, 06-cv-1767, 07-cv-1710, 07-cv-2337, 07-cv-2338, 08-cv-0987, 08-cv-1101, 08-cv-1153, 08-cv-1207, 08-cv-1221, 08-cv-1224, 08-cv-1228, 08-cv-1230, 08-cv-1232, 08-cv-1233, 08-cv-1235, 08-cv-1236, 08-cv-1237, 08-cv-1238, 08-cv-1360, 08-cv-1440, 08-cv-1789, 08-cv-1805, 08-cv-1828, 08-cv-1923, 08-cv-2019, 08-cv-2083
Parties: In Re: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 601
Pages: 129–132

Head Matter:
In Re: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION.
Misc. No. 08-mc-0442 (TFH).
Civil Action Nos. 02-cv-0828, 04-cv-1136, 04-cv-1164, 04-cv-1194, 04-cv-1254, 04-cv-1937, 04-cv-2022, 04-cv-2046, 04-cv-2215, 05-cv-0023, 05-cv-0247, 05-cv-0270, 05-cv-0280, 05-cv-0329, 05-cv-0359, 05-cv-0392, 05-cv-0492, 05-cv-0520, 05-cv-0526, 05-cv-0569, 05-cv-0634, 05-cv-0748, 05-cv-0763, 05-cv-0764, 05-cv-0877, 05-cv-0883, 05-cv-0889, 05-cv-0892, 05-cv-0993, 05-cv-0994, 05-cv-0999, 05-cv-1048, 05-cv-1124, 05-cv-1189, 05-cv-1220, 05-cv-1244, 05-cv-1347, 05-cv-1353, 05-cv-1429, 05-cv-1457, 05-cv-1487, 05-cv-1490, 05-cv-1497, 05-cv-1504, 05-cv-1506, 05-cv-1555, 05-cv-1592, 05-cv-1601, 05-cv-1607, 05-cv-1623, 05-cv-1638, 05-cv-1645, 05-cv-1646, 05-cv-1678, 05-cv-1971, 05-cv-1983, 05-cv-2088, 05-cv-2104, 05-cv-2185, 05-cv-2186, 05-cv-2199, 05-cv-2249, 05-cv-2349, 05-cv-2367, 05-cv-2371, 05-cv-2378, 05-cv-2379, 05-cv-2380, 05-cv-2384, 05-cv-2385, 05-cv-2386, 05-cv-2387, 05-cv-2479, 06-cv-1668, 06-cv-1684, 06-cv-1690, 06-cv-1758, 06-cv-1761, 06-cv-1765, 06-cv-1766, 06-cv-1767, 07-cv-1710, 07-cv-2337, 07-cv-2338, 08-cv-0987, 08-cv-1101, 08-cv-1153, 08-cv-1207, 08-cv-1221, 08-cv-1224, 08-cv-1228, 08-cv-1230, 08-cv-1232, 08-cv-1233, 08-cv-1235, 08-cv-1236, 08-cv-1237, 08-cv-1238, 08-cv-1360, 08-cv-1440, 08-cv-1789, 08-cv-1805, 08-cv-1828, 08-cv-1923, 08-cv-2019, 08-cv-2083.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Feb. 27, 2009.
David J. Cynamon, Matthew J. Maclean, Osman Ahmad Handoo, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Abdulaziz Sayer Owain A1 Shammari, pro se.
Sayer O. Z. A1 Shammari, pro se.
Nayef N. N. B. J. A1 Mutairi, pro se.
Abdullah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi, pro se.
Mesfer Saleh Ali Al Ajmi, pro se.
Mohammed Funaitel Al Dihani, pro se.
Mubara F. S. M. Al Daihani, pro se.
Nasser Nijer Naser A1 Mutairi, pro se.
Saad Madai Saad Hawash Al-Azmi, pro se.
Hamad Madai Saad, pro se.
Alexander Kenneth Haas, Brian David Boyle, Daniel M. Barish, August Edward Flentje, David Hugh White, Kathryn Celia Mason, Kristina Ann Wolfe, Scott Michael Marconda, Arlene Pianko Groner, U.S. Department of Justice, Judry Laeb Subar, Paul Edward Ahern, Andrew I. Warden, Terry Marcus Henry, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Robert D. Okun, United States Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, Robert J. Prince, Arlington, VA, for Defendants.
Charles B. Gittings, Jr., pro se.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.
On December 17, 2008, 2008 WL 5275914, the Court ordered the parties in the above-captioned cases to confer and "submit a joint filing that identifies petitions that may, based on the similarity of the factual issues involved, be consolidated for merits proceedings." (Docket No. 1323, 08-mc-0442). Pursuant to that order, the Court received five such joint filings on January 5, 2009. (Docket Nos. 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1468, 08-mc-0442). The filings identified fifty-two petitions for consolidation into five distinct groups. After a careful review of each joint filing, the Court has determined that consolidating these petitions at this time would not improve the efficiency of the habeas corpus proceedings. Accordingly, the Court declines to consolidate any of the fifty-two petitions.
Although consolidation is not appropriate at this time, the Court recommends reassigning some of these petitions into three groups. The Court believes that the joint filings identified three groups of related petitions. See Docket Nos. 1464, 1465, 1468, 08-mc-442. The petitions within these three groups, fifteen petitions in all, appear to "involve common issues of fact" and therefore are "related" under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3). In light of the factual similarities of the petitions in each group, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court recommends that the Calendar and Case Management Committee reassign these fifteen petitions into the following three groups:
Group 1
(Docket No. 1464, 08-mc-0442)
Petitioner Case No. Judge
1 ISN 004 05-cv-2367 Roberts
2 ISN 006 08-cv-1828 Urbina
3 ISN 832 05-cv-2367 Roberts
4 ISN 1103 05-cv-2367 Roberts
5 ISN 1104 05-cv-2367 Roberts
According to Respondents, the petitioners in Group 1 "were high ranking officials in the Taliban government," and most of them "worked together in the Taliban's Ministiy of Intelligence." 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1464, at 2. These petitions appear to "involve common issues of fact." LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court recommends that the petitions in this group be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment. Specifically, the Court recommends that these five petitions be reassigned to a single Merits Judge.
Group 2
(Docket No. 1465, 08-mc-0442)
Petitioner Case No. Judge
1 ISN 326 05-cv-2386 Walton
2 ISN 327 05-cv-0892 Kollar-Kotelly
3 ISN 329 05-cv-1490 Friedman
4 ISN 330 05-cv-2386 Walton
According to Respondents, the petitioners in Group 2: (i) travelled from the same country to the same city in a second country; (ii) studied with the same teacher; (iii) stayed in the same house in the second country; (iv) left the house together and travelled together in the second country; (v) attempted to leave the second country together; and (vi) were captured together. 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1465, at 2. The detention of these petitioners appears to "grow out of the same event." LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Their petitions appear to "involve common issues of fact." Id. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court recommends that the petitions in this group be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment. Specifically, the Court recommends that these four petitions be reassigned to a single Merits Judge.
Group 3
(Docket No. 1468, 08-mc-0442)
Petitioner Case No. Judge
1 ISN 836 06-cv-1765 Kennedy
2 ISN 837 04-cv-1194 Kennedy
3 ISN 838 08-cv-1238 Roberts
4 ISN 839 04-cv-U94 Kennedy
5 ISN 840 05-cv-2186 Huvelle
6 ISN 841 05-cv-0023 Roberts
According to Respondents, the petitioners in Group 3:(i) are citizens of the same country; (ii) travelled to a second country in 2000 and 2001; (iii) stayed at similar safehouses while in the second country; (iv) travelled to train at the same military camps; (v) fought coalition forces; (vi) fled to the same city in a third country; and (vii) stayed in the same safehouses in the third country. 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1468, at 2. Additionally, Respondents allege that most of the petitioners were captured on the same day during a raid of these safehouses. Id. The detention of these petitioners appears to "grow out of the same event." LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Their petitions appear to "involve common issues of fact." Id. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5, the Court recommends that the petitions in this group be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment. Specifically, the Court recommends that these six petitions be reassigned to a single Merits Judge.
While consolidating the petitions in these three groups is not appropriate at this time, the Court believes that reassigning each group of "related" petitions to a single Merits Judge would conserve judicial resources and promote efficiency. If the Calendar and Case Management Committee decides to reassign these petitions, the presiding Merits Judge can reexamine the merits of consolidation.
. Petitioners dispute that "all five of these detainees served as high-ranking Taliban government officials." 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1464, at 6-7.