Uthman v. Trump

• Decision Date: 28 August 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 04-cv-1254 (RCL)
• Citation: 486 F.Supp.3d 350
• Parties: Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed UTHMAN, Petitioner, v. Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

486 F.Supp.3d 350

Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed UTHMAN, Petitioner,

v.Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Respondents.

Civil Action No. 04-cv-1254 (RCL)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed August 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge

Petitioner Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman (ISN 27) ("Uthman"), a Yemeni national, challenges his continued detention at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After his capture near Tora Bora in December 2001 and subsequent transfer to U.S. authorities, Uthman was taken to Guantanamo, where he remains in custody. This Court previously granted Uthman's petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding the Government could not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Uthman was part of al Qaeda. Abdah v. Obama , 708 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13, 23 (D.D.C. 2010) (Kennedy, H., J., presiding). On review, the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding the Government's evidence "more than sufficient" to justify Uthman's detention. Uthman v. Obama , 637 F.3d 400, 404 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court denied Uthman's petition for writ of certiorari. Uthman v. Obama , 567 U.S. 905, 132 S.Ct. 2739, 183 L.Ed.2d 614 (2012). Uthman now argues that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) does not authorize his continued detention, which he labels "punitive" and "excessive," and that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Currently before the Court is Uthman's Motion to Grant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("motion" or "petition"). ECF No. 1072. After considering the motion, opposition, reply, and supplemental briefs, the Court finds Uthman's continued detention lawful, and therefore DENIES his Motion to Grant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman is a Yemeni national. Uthman , 637 F.3d at 402. In December 2001, Uthman was captured "at the Afghan-Pakistani border near Tora Bora," along with perhaps twenty or thirty others. Id. at 402, 402 n.1. Among these were "two al Qaeda members who were Osama bin Laden bodyguards and another man who was a Taliban fighter." Id. at 402. At the time of his capture, al Qaeda forces had gathered at Tora Bora "to wage a major battle against the United States and its allies." Id. On suspicion Uthman was a member of al Qaeda, he was transferred to Guantanamo in January 2002, where he remains today. Id.

In 2004, Uthman filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging his detention. Id. Uthman claimed that though he was in Afghanistan at the time of his capture, he "was not part of Al Qaeda," but instead had journeyed there "to teach the Quran to children." Abdah , 708 F. Supp. 2d at 13. Applying circuit precedent, the District Court determined that Uthman's detention would be lawful so long as the Government could show Uthman's membership in al Qaeda was "more probable than not." Id. (quoting United States v. Mathis , 216 F.3d 18, 28 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ). After reviewing the evidence, the District Court found that "Uthman (1) studied at a school at which other men were recruited to fight for Al Qaeda; (2) received money for his trip to Afghanistan from an individual who supported jihad; (3) traveled to Afghanistan along a route also taken by Al Qaeda recruits; (4) was seen at two Al Qaeda guesthouses in Afghanistan; and (5) was with Al Qaeda members in the vicinity of Tora Bora after the battle that occurred there." Abdah , 708 F. Supp. 2d at 22. Despite this "quite incriminating" evidence, the District Court concluded upon "close examination" that it was "not sufficient to carry respondents’ burden." Id. at 23. In the Court's view, the Government had leveled merely a charge of "guilt by association" against Uthman. Id. Accordingly, it granted Uthman's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id.

On review, the D.C. Circuit reversed. Uthman , 637 F.3d at 402 (Kavanaugh, J.). Surveying both the District Court's findings and uncontested facts from the record, it found that evidence of Uthman's membership in al Qaeda easily satisfied the preponderance standard, and thus that his detention was lawful. Id. at 404. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit noted,

• "Uthman was captured in December 2001 in the vicinity of Tora Bora, an isolated, mountainous area where al Qaeda forces had gathered to fight the United States and its allies.

• When captured, Uthman was traveling with a small group of men, two of whom were al Qaeda members and bodyguards for Osama bin Laden and one of whom was a Taliban fighter.

• Leading up to his capture, Uthman's journey began at a religious school in Yemen where al Qaeda had successfully recruited fighters. The two al Qaeda members who were later captured with Uthman, as well as the Taliban fighter captured with Uthman, also attended the Furqan Institute.

• Uthman traveled to Afghanistan along a route used by al Qaeda recruits.

• Uthman lied to hide the fact that someone else paid for his travel to Afghanistan.

• While in Afghanistan, Uthman was seen at an al Qaeda guesthouse." Id. at 404.

The D.C. Circuit thought that Uthman's attempt to explain away these facts as nothing more than a series of innocent coincidences "strain[ed] credulity." Id. at 407. It would require believing that Uthman was "a kind of Forrest Gump in the war against al Qaeda"—always just so happening to appear in places of extraordinary significance to the war on terror. Id. Unwilling to indulge that remarkable claim, the panel overturned the judgment below and remanded with instructions to deny his petition. Id. at 407–08. The Supreme Court then denied his petition for writ of certiorari. Uthman , 567 U.S. at 905, 132 S.Ct. 2739.

Fourteen years after his initial petition and seven years after the panel decision, Uthman filed the focus of this Opinion: his Motion to Grant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 1072. The government then filed its response, ECF No. 1075, and Uthman his reply. ECF No. 1078. With the briefing complete, the motion is now ripe for review.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Uthman's previous habeas petition centered on a question of fact—whether he was more likely than not an operative of al Qaeda. Abdah , 708 F. Supp. 2d at 12–13. His present challenge presents mostly questions of law—whether the uncontested duration of his detention is "excessive," "punitive," exceeds the scope of the AUMF, or violates Due Process. Motion at 5, 10, 15, ECF No. 1072. The Court will examine the merits of each claim according to the relevant legal doctrines in the sections that follow. The Court must also consider whether the conflict in which Uthman was captured continues today; a factual determination that will inform its legal analysis. As a general proposition, the Government must only demonstrate such facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Ali v. Trump , 959 F.3d 364, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citing Uthman , 637 F.3d at 403 n.3 ; Awad v. Obama , 608 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("Lest there be any further misunderstandings, let us be absolutely clear. A preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies constitutional requirements in considering a habeas petition from a detainee held pursuant to the AUMF.")). With that admonition in mind, the Court proceeds to the substance of Uthman's filing.

III. ANALYSIS

Uthman's motion sets forth two principle grounds for relief. First, he contends that "the AUMF does not authorize [his] detention." Motion at 5, ECF No. 1072. That is so, in his view, for three reasons: his detention has become "punitive," rather than a genuine mechanism to keep him off the battlefield; the government's AUMF authority has "unraveled" given developments in the war on terror; and, last, the " ‘particular conflict’ in which Uthman was captured has ended." Id. at 13. Second, he argues that his "continued detention violates the Constitution's due process clause." Id. at 15. That is the case, he says, because his detention has become "arbitrarily divorced" from the legitimate goal of preventing his resumption of hostilities. Id. at 18. Thus, it contravenes "the due process right to be free from the arbitrary deprivation of liberty at the hands of the government." Id. at 17. After considering and dismissing the Government's procedural objections to Uthman's petition, the Court will explain why neither of Uthman's grounds for relief succeed.

1. Is Uthman's Present Filing Procedurally Barred?

The Government contends "as an initial matter" that the Court should not entertain Uthman's Motion because its "procedural posture" is "fundamentally flawed." Response at 8–9, ECF No. 1075. The Government's understanding is that Uthman's filing represents an attempt to either renew his original petition or to obtain relief from the denial of that petition under Rule 60(b). Id. at 8; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. If it is the first option, the Government says that Uthman's failed first petition must be res judicata with respect to his present motion, since "it was [already] judicially determined that he is so detainable." Response at 8–9, ECF No. 1075. If it is the second, the Government says, then Uthman has no good arguments for relief under the various provisions of Rule 60(b). Grounds (b)(1)–(b)(3) are time barred, the judgment is not void under (b)(4), (b)(5) is not relevant because the prior judgment is not executory, and his detention is not among those "extraordinary circumstances" that might justify relief under (b)(6). Id.

So what is Uthman filing here? A "renewal" of his old petition, a Rule 60 attack on the judgment denying that old petition, or a second, new petition? In his reply, Uthman makes some arguments about (b)(5) and (b)(6)—that his detention is an inequitable or "extraordinary" circumstance justifying relief—but then he gets to the heart of the matter: his present "Motion" is really "a new petition for habeas relief." Reply at 3, ECF No....