Kuman v. Obama ., Civil Action No. 08-1235(JDB).
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | JOHN D. BATES, District Judge. |
| Citation | 725 F.Supp.2d 72 |
| Parties | Ahmed Yaslam Said KUMAN, Petitioner, v. Barack H. OBAMA, et al., Respondents. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 08-1235(JDB). |
| Decision Date | 23 July 2010 |
725 F.Supp.2d 72
Ahmed Yaslam Said KUMAN, Petitioner,
v.
Barack H. OBAMA, et al., Respondents.
Civil Action No. 08-1235(JDB).
United States District Court,District of Columbia.
July 23, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Ahmed Yaslam Said Kuman, pro se.
Carlton F. Gunn, Craig Anthony Harbaugh, Office of Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, Scott Michael Marconda, David Hugh White, Julia A. Berman, Kathryn Celia Mason, Patrick D. Davis, Robert J. Prince, Scott Douglas Levin, Sean W. O'Donnell, Jr., Terry Marcus Henry, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Currently before the Court is [120] respondents' motion to dismiss petitioner's habeas corpus petition for lack of authorization. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion.
In December 2006, Sami al Hajj brought a habeas petition as “next friend” for petitioner Ahmed Yaslam Said Kuman. See Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket Entry 2], at 2. In August 2008, Chief Judge Lamberth appointed the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California as counsel for Kuman. See Aug. 5, 2008 Order [Docket Entry 9].
Judge Hogan, in his capacity as coordinating judge for the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, has ordered that in all cases in which a detainee is represented in a petition for habeas corpus by a next friend, “counsel shall file a signed authorization from the petitioner to pursue the action or a declaration by counsel that states that the petitioner directly authorized counsel to pursue the action and explains why counsel was unable to secure a signed authorization.” July 29, 2008 Order [Docket Entry 5], at 2; see also Sept. 11, 2008 Protective Order [Docket Entry 20], at 17 (“Counsel shall provide evidence of their authority to represent the detainee as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than ten days after the conclusion of a second visit with a detainee.”).
On October 21, 2008, the Court granted Kuman's counsel an extension of time to obtain Kuman's authorization to proceed with this habeas petition, and required them to provide such authorization by January 10, 2009. See Oct. 21, 2008 Minute Order. The Court subsequently granted Kuman's counsel an additional thirty day extension. See Jan. 12, 2009 Minute Order. Upon Kuman's counsel's motion, the Court stayed the habeas petition several weeks later. See Feb. 3, 2009 Order [Docket Entry 79], at 1. The Court has since granted five unopposed motions by Kuman's counsel to extend the stay. See Apr. 13, 2009 Minute Order; June 1, 2009 Minute Order; Aug. 28, 2009 Minute Order; Oct. 29, 2009 Minute Order; Dec. 30, 2009 Minute Order. Shortly before the Court's most recent stay extension expired, respondents indicated that they would oppose any further extensions. See Mar. 11, 2010 Joint Status Report [Docket Entry 118], at 1-2. During a subsequent status conference, the Court set a briefing schedule for respondents to file a motion to dismiss. See Mar. 12, 2010 Hrg. Tr., 20:2-15; see also Mar. 15, 2010 Minute Order.
Kuman's counsel have visited Guantanamo Bay on a number of occasions in order to meet with Kuman and obtain his authorization to pursue this action. Counsel first tried to meet with Kuman in December 2008, but he declined to meet. See Pet'r's Dec. 29, 2009 Mot. to Extend Stay (“Pet'r's Mot. to Stay”) [Docket Entry 115], at 1. Kuman did meet with counsel on January 22, 2009. See id. At this meeting, Kuman “indicated that he was aware that the new president had directed that the detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay be closed. [He] expressed hope that this would result in the release of detainees without the necessity of habeas corpus proceedings.” Id. at 2. Counsel did not obtain Kuman's authorization to proceed with this habeas action.
Counsel next tried to meet with Kuman in May 2009, and again in July 2009. See id. On both occasions, Kuman declined to meet. Counsel were, however, able to meet with Kuman during the week of October 5, 2009. At this meeting, “[o]ne of the subjects of discussion was the possibility of seeking transfer of petitioner to Saudi Arabia instead of Yemen, the country of which he is a citizen.” Id. at 3. “Petitioner expressed a possible interest in having counsel explore that possibility but indicated he would like to think about it overnight and would meet with counsel the next day if he wished to discuss that possibility further.” Id. Kuman did not meet with counsel the next day. Thus, notwithstanding the purpose of the October 2009 trip and meeting, Kuman gave no authorization to proceed. Counsel next tried to meet with Kuman during the week of December 7, 2009, see id., and, according to respondents, again on April 20 and 21, 2010, see Resp't's Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Docket Entry 130], at 3 & n. 1. Kuman refused to meet on any of these occasions.
Kuman's counsel has traveled to Guantanamo to try to meet with their client seven times, and have met with him twice. Despite their diligent efforts, appointed counsel have not, as required by Judge Hogan's order, “file [d] a signed authorization from the petitioner to pursue the action or a declaration by counsel that states that the petitioner directly authorized counsel to pursue the action and explains why counsel was unable to secure a signed authorization.” See July 29, 2008 Order at 2. “If counsel fails to obtain the authorization from his or her client, the Court does not have jurisdiction over petitioner's challenge.” Idris v. Obama, 667 F.Supp.2d 25, 28 (D.D.C.2009); see also Al Sattar v. Obama, Civ. No. 08-1236, 2009 WL 3416195 (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 2009) (dismissing habeas petition without prejudice for lack of authorization).
Nevertheless, Kuman's counsel argue that, before dismissing this habeas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oceana Inc. v. Locke ., Civil Action No. 08-318(ESH).
...alternatives expressly analyzed in the EA, the Councils considered, but ultimately rejected, an additional four distinct alternatives.”)725 F.Supp.2d 72 The Court concludes that these “brief discussions” of alternatives considered and rejected by the agency are adequate under NEPA. See 40 C......
-
Oceana, Inc. v. Ross, 17-5247
...allocate for that purpose, Locke , 670 F.3d at 1242. In Oceana, Inc. v. Locke , the District Court upheld the 2008 Amendment, see 725 F.Supp.2d at 72, but we reversed, Locke , 670 F.3d at 1243. We held that "[b]ecause the [2008] Amendment grants the Fisheries Service substantial discretion ......
-
Oceana Inc. v. Locke ., Civil Action No. 08-318(ESH).
...alternatives expressly analyzed in the EA, the Councils considered, but ultimately rejected, an additional four distinct alternatives.”)725 F.Supp.2d 72 The Court concludes that these “brief discussions” of alternatives considered and rejected by the agency are adequate under NEPA. See 40 C......
-
Oceana, Inc. v. Ross, 17-5247
...allocate for that purpose, Locke , 670 F.3d at 1242. In Oceana, Inc. v. Locke , the District Court upheld the 2008 Amendment, see 725 F.Supp.2d at 72, but we reversed, Locke , 670 F.3d at 1243. We held that "[b]ecause the [2008] Amendment grants the Fisheries Service substantial discretion ......