Court Opinion

ID: 9880640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 21:01:12.920249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:18.595943
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KHALID AHMED QASSIM, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
V. ) Civil Case No. 04-1194 (RJL)
)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ft
MEMORANDUM ORDER

(September 22 2023) [Dkt. ## 1162, 1187]

Petitioner Khalid Ahmed Qassim is in the custody of the United States at Naval
Station Guantanamo Bay. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. #1] 9] 9, 12. He filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the merits of which was decided on a stipulated record.
Tr. of Merits Hr’g [Dkt. #1143-1] at 3. In advance of oral argument on the stipulated
record, Qassim filed a motion in limine to prohibit evidence the consideration of which
would violate his due process rights. Pet’r’s Mot. in Limine [Dkt. #1124]. The Court
denied the motion, relying in part on our Circuit’s observation in Kiyemba v. Obama that
“the due process clause does not apply to aliens without property or presence in the
sovereign territory of the United States.” 555 F.3d 1022, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2009), reinstated
as amended, 605 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Tr. of Merits Hr’g at 18-19. It
then denied Qassim’s petition. Tr. of Merits Hr’g at 23; see also Judgment [Dkt. #1139].

On appeal, Qassim raised a due process challenge, specifically with respect to the
Government’s use of undisclosed classified information to show a basis for his detention.

Qassim v. Trump, 927 F.3d 522, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Our Circuit Court reversed and
remanded. /d. at 532. It held that this Court erred in reading Kiyemba as categorically
denying procedural due process rights to Guantanamo detainees. Jd. at 528. It then
remanded for further proceedings, because the parties never actually followed any of the
disclosure procedures in the Case Management Order or the Protective Order governing in
the case, leaving our Circuit without a concrete discovery dispute to review for its potential
due process implications. Jd. at 530-32.

On remand, Qassim moved to modify certain provisions of the coordinated
Guantanamo detainee Case Management Order as applied to his case. Pet’r’s Mot. to
Modify Case Mgmt. Order [Dkt. #1162]. After a status conference on the motion, the
Government filed a Second Amended Factual Return. See Resp’ts’ Notice of Filing [Dkt.
#1182]. Qassim then moved to remove redactions to portions of the Second Amended
Factual Return and one exhibit. Pet’r’s Mot. to Un-redact [Dkt. #1187].

The Court is not in a position to grant either motion at this point. As to the motion
to modify provisions of the Case Management Order, Qassim did not comply with his
obligation to confer with the Government before filing his motion, see LCvR 7(m), and the
Government has expressed its willingness to confer and jointly propose a schedule and
procedures for this case, Resp’ts’ Opp’n to Pet’r’s Mot. to Modify Case Mgmt. Order [Dkt.
#1166] at 2-3, 3 n.2. The parties should do so, particularly because Qassim’s motion is
four years old—that is, it would be helpful to hear the parties’ latest thinking on how to
proceed.

As to the motion to remove redactions from the Government’s Second Amended

Factual Return and one exhibit, the Government sent a proposed plan to Qassim’s attorneys
that would allow Qassim to view the redacted information and to discuss it with his
attorneys. See Resp’ts’ Mot. for Extension of Time [Dkt. #1188]. Since then, the parties
have not indicated any progress in adopting that proposal. For all I know, Qassim may
have already viewed the redacted information. Because it would be helpful to hear the
latest from the parties on this motion too, it is hereby

ORDERED that Qassim’s Motion to Modify Section I of the Case Management
Order as It Pertains to Petitioner’s Case [Dkt. #1162] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. It is further

ORDERED that Qassim’s Motion to Un-redact [Dkt. #1187] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further

ORDERED that, within sixty days of the issuance of this Memorandum Order, the
parties shall meet and confer regarding any modifications to the Case Management Order
as applied to Qassim’s case and shall file a joint memorandum setting forth any disputed
or joint proposals to modify the Case Management Order and the parties’ respective
positions on disputed proposals. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall include, in the same joint memorandum, an update
on the parties’ efforts to allow Qassim to review information redacted from the Second

Amended Factual Return and Exhibit 8 thereto.

Cal psn
RICHARD J. N

United States District Judge

SO ORDERED.