(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "gov.uscourts.dcd.116163"

Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 10 Filed 1 1/04/2005 Page 1 of 5 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



AHMED DOE, et al., 



Petitioners, 



v. 



GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., 



Respondents. 



NABIL, etal., 



Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., 



Respondents. 



ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, et al.. 



Petitioners, 



v. 



GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., 



Respondents. 



Civil Action No. 05-1458 (ESH) 



Civil Action No. 05-1504 (RMC) 



Civil Action No. 05-1505 (RMC) 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 10 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 2 of 5 



SHAFIIQ,^aA, 



Petitioners, 



v. 



GEORGE W. BUSH, et al, 



Respondents. 



SADARDOE,*?*a/., 



Petitioner, 



v. 



GEORGE W. BUSH, et al, 



Respondents. 



MUHAMMAED QASIM, et al 



Petitioner, 



v. 



GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., 



Respondents. 



Civil Action No. 05-1506 (RMC) 



Civil Action No. 05-1704 (JR) 



Civil Action No. 05-1779 (JDB) 



ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

In each of the above-captioned cases, Respondents have filed a Motion for Order to Show 
Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Proper "Next Friend" Standing or, in the 



Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 10 Filed 1 1/04/2005 Page 3 of 5 

Alternative, to Stay Proceedings Pending Related Appeals. 1 These motions have been assigned 

to the undersigned pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.6(a). 2 

Next friend standing constitutes a narrow exception to the normal requirement that a party 

bring suit on his or her own behalf. The Supreme Court, in Whitmore v. Arkansas , 495 U.S. 149 

(1990), recognized — 

two firmly rooted prerequisites for "next friend" standing. First, a "next friend" 
must provide an adequate explanation - such as inaccessibility, mental 
incompetence, or other disability — why the real party in interest cannot appear 
on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the "next friend" must be truly 
dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, 
and it has been further suggested that a "next friend" must have some significant 
relationship with the real party in interest. 

Id. at 163 (citations omitted). 

Petitioners contend that Respondents have made it "extremely difficult" for 

counsel to obtain authorization to represent some of the detainees, either directly or 

through next friend status. See, e.g. , Pet'rs' Mem. in Resp. to Resp'ts' Mot. for Order to 

Show Cause at 2 (filed in Civ. No. 05-1458). Petitioners seem to suggest that any 

jurisdictional defects in Petitioners' next friend status should be excused because of 

Respondents' alleged conduct. Generally, however, a court does not have jurisdiction 

over a case if the party filing the suit does not have standing. See Whitmore , 495 U.S. at 

155-56 ("A federal court is powerless to create its own jurisdiction by embellishing 



'Respondents' motions in the above-captioned cases are virtually identical. 

2 See Order of Nov. 1, 2005, Doe v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1704 [dkt no. 18]; Order of Oct. 
31, 2005, Qasim v. Bush. , Civ. No. 05-1779 [dkt no. 4]; Order of Oct. 25, 2005, Shafiiq v. Bush , 
Civ. No. 05-1506 [dkt no. 10]; Order of Oct. 25, 2005, Al Hawary v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1505 
[dkt no. 10]; Order of Oct. 25, 2005, Nabil v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1504 [dkt no. 8]; Order of Oct. 
13, 2005, Doe v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1458 [dkt no. 8]. 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 10 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 4 of 5 

otherwise deficient allegations of standing.") (citation omitted); see id at 161 ("the 
requirement of an Art[icle] HI 'case or controversy' is not merely a traditional 'rule of 
practice,' but rather is imposed directly by the Constitution."). Petitioners do not cite any 
legal authority for the proposition that Respondents' alleged conduct may excuse a failure 
by Petitioners to demonstrate standing. 

Moreover, according to the government, there are "presently 154 cases pending before the 
Court on behalf of approximately 283 petitioners, although this number includes detainees who 
filed multiple petitions." Resp'ts' Reply in Support of Mot. for Order to Show Cause at 5 n.3. 
Petitioners do not explain why the detainees that they purport to represent as next friends are in a 
materially different position than the detainees who have filed petitions with this Court. 3 

Accordingly, it is this 4th day of November, 2005, hereby: 

ORDERED: that the Respondents' Motions for Order to Show Cause Why Case Should 
Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Proper "Next Friend" Standing, in Doe v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1458 
[dkt no. 2]; Nabil v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1504 [dkt no. 4]; Al Hawary v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1505 
[dkt no. 4]; Shafiiq v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1506 [dkt no. 4]; Doe v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1704 [dkt 



3 Other Judges of this Court have expressed similar concerns. See Order Directing 
Petitioner to Show Cause (Oct. 3, 2005) at 1, Hamlily v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-0763 (a "substantial 
question" exists "as to whether [Petitioner] has standing as 'next friend,'" in part because over 
150 petitions by Guantanamo Bay detainees have been successfully filed in this Court); 
Memorandum Order Directing Petitioner to Show Cause (Oct. 11, 2005) at 2, Razak v. Bush , 
Civ. No. 05-1601 ("The Petition contains insufficient information to establish Al Razak's 
inability to bring suit on his own, or to demonstrate that [the putative next friend] is dedicated to 
Al Razak's best interests."); Order Directing Petitioner to File Memorandum (May 25, 2005) at 
2, Ahmed v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-665 ("The petition presumes, rather than demonstrates through 
facts, that Ahmed has been denied access to the courts of the United States. In light of the fact 
that several pro se petitions have been filed recently by Guantanamo Bay detainees, Ahmed's 
lack of access to this court cannot be presumed, but must be established."). 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 10 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 5 of 5 

no. 4]; Qasim v. Bush , Civ. No. 05-1779 [dkt no. 2], are GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED: that Petitioners shall show cause on or before Friday, November 18, 2005 , 
why their petitions should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and it is further 

ORDERED: that Respondents may file a response on or before Monday, November 28, 
2005 ; and it is further 

ORDERED: that a hearing will be held on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. in 
Courtroom 3 ; and it is further 

ORDERED: that Petitioners and Respondents consult with Magistrate Judge Kay as soon 
as is practicable (but in any event before the hearing) to discuss how counsel for Petitioners may 
obtain access to the detainees who allegedly seek to be represented by next friends to determine 
if the detainees will authorize counsel to represent them directly. 

/s/ 

Louis F. Oberdorfer 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE