Court Opinion

ID: 2518730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-30 10:08:00.084374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:10:47.201407
License: Public Domain

601 F. Supp. 2d 129 (2009)
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.
February 27, 2009.
*130 David J. Cynamon, Matthew J. Maclean, Osman Ahmad Handoo, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Abdulaziz Sayer Owain Al Shammari, pro se.
Sayer O. Z. Al Shammari, pro se.
Nayef N. N. B. J. Al 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 Al 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.

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 *131 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 Ministry of Intelligence." 1/5/09 Joint Filing, Docket No. 1464, at 2.[1] 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-1194  Kennedy
-----------------------------------

*132
-----------------------------------
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.
NOTES
[1]  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.