(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage 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 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 1 of 23 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



AHMED DOE, et ah, 



Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et ah, 



Respondents. 



ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL 
W1RGRI, et ah, 

Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et ah, 



Respondents. 



NABIL (Last Name Unknown), et ah, 
Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et ah, 



Respondents. 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1458 (ESH) 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1497 (RCL) 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1504 (RMC) 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 2 of 23 



ABBAR SUFIAN AL HA WARY, et al, 



Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et al, 



Respondents. 



SHAFIIQ (Last Name Unknown), et al, 
Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et al, 



Respondents. 



HAMID AL RAZAK, et al, 



Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et al, 



Respondents. 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1505 (RMC) 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1506 (RMC) 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1601 (GK) 



Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 3 of 23 



MOHAMMAD AKHTLAR, 



Petitioner, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et al, 



Respondents. 



SAD AR DOE, et al, 



Petitioners, 



GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 
et al, 



Respondents. 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1635 (PLF) 



Civil Action No. 05-CV-1704 (JR) 



RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROPER "NEXT FRIEND" 

STANDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 
PENDING RELATED APPEALS AND FOR CONTINUED COORDINATION 

Respondents hereby respectfully request that the Court order petitioners to show cause 

why the above-captioned petitions for writ of habeas corpus, not directly authorized by the 

detainees at Guantanamo Bay for whom habeas relief is sought, but instead brought by other 

detainees claiming to act as their "next friends," should not be dismissed for lack of proper next 

friend standing. The putative "next friends," detainees Omar Deghayes, Jamal Kiyemba, Shaker 



3- 



Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 4 of 23 

Aamer, Bisher Al Rawi and Usama Hasan Abu Kabir, former detainee Moazzam Begg, and one 
unnamed detainee, 1 bear the burden of establishing their next friend status and justifying the 
exercise of the court's jurisdiction over these actions. See Whitmore v. Arkansas , 495 U.S. 149, 
163 (1990) ('"[N]ext friend' standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to 
pursue an action on behalf of another."). To do so, they must satisfy the "two firmly rooted 
prerequisites" articulated by the Supreme Court in Whitmore : (1) they must demonstrate that the 
detainees on whose behalf they claim to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus cannot challenge 
the legality of their detention themselves; and (2) they must have a significant relationship with 
each of these detainees in order to demonstrate that they are truly dedicated to each detainee's 
best interests. Id at 163-64. The petitions in the above-captioned cases fail to meet either 
requirement. If petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the petitions were filed by legitimate 
next friends, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the petitions, and they must be dismissed 
for lack of standing. 2 



1 Although the petition in Akhtiar v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1635 (PLF) was styled as a 
petition filed pursuant to direct authorization by the detainee for whom habeas relief is being 
sought in that case, see Akhtiar Petition at 1 , upon consultation with counsel to determine the 
source of counsel's authorization for filing the petition, respondents were informed that 
"[attorneys with the Center of Constitutional Rights received a communication from a prisoner 
at Guantanamo that speaks English . . . [who] relayed a request from Mr. Mohammad Akhtiar for 
legal representation." See Declaration of Richard A. Grigg, ]{ 4 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 
Thus, the petition in this case should have been styled as one filed through a putative next friend, 
the unnamed "prisoner at Guantanamo that speaks English." 

2 The issue of next friend standing was raised sua sponte by Judge Roberts in Ahmed v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR), another Guantanamo Bay detainee case. Based on an 
observation that the petition presented scant facts demonstrating that the Whitmore requirements 
were satisfied, Judge Roberts ordered petitioners to file a memorandum and supporting materials 
tending to demonstrate that the detainee who purported to act as next friend in that case should 
be granted next friend standing. See Ahmed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR) (Order dated May 
24, 2005) (dkt. no. 12). Petitioners filed a memorandum in response to the Court's Order, in an 

-4- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 5 of 23 

If the above-captioned cases are not dismissed for lack of proper next friend standing, the 
cases nonetheless should be stayed pending resolution of all appeals in Khalid v. Bush , 
Boumediene v. Bush , Nos. 04-CV-1142 (RJL), 04-CV-1166 (RJL), 355 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D.D.C. 
2005), appeals docketed , Nos. 05-5062, 05-5063 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 2, 2005), and In re Guantanamo 
Detainee Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et al , 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005), appeal on petition 
for interlocutory appeal , No. 05-5064 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10, 2005). The pending appeals will 
address the core issues in these cases and, thus, determine how these cases should proceed, if at 
all. It makes no sense for these cases to proceed in any substantive fashion prior to resolution of 
the appeals; further proceedings would require the expenditure of significant judicial and other 
resources that may be avoided as a result of the appeals, and, in any event, such proceedings very 
likely would have to be revisited or relitigated once the appeals are decided and the Court of 
Appeals provides guidance regarding handling of the claims in all of the Guantanamo detainee 
cases. 



attempt to demonstrate that both prongs of the Whitmore test were satisfied. See Ahmed v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR) (dkt. no. 13). Although respondents filed a response to 
petitioners' memorandum indicating that they took no position on petitioners' memorandum at 
that time, see Ahmed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR) (dkt. no. 14), and the Court in that case 
did not issue any subsequent ruling on the issue, respondents now seek to challenge next friend 
standing in these recently-filed Guantanamo Bay detainee cases in which the appropriate next 
friend standing requirements have not been satisfied. 

-5- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 6 of 23 

ARGUMENT 

I. Petitioners Should Establish Proper "Next Friend" Standing or the Above- 

Captioned Cases Should be Dismissed. 

It is well-established that "before a federal court can consider the merits of a legal claim, 

the person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must establish the requisite standing to 

sue" under Article III of the Constitution. Whitmore , 495 U.S. at 154. The standing doctrine 

"ensure[s] that the plaintiff has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of a dispute to render 

judicial resolution of it appropriate in a society that takes seriously both the idea of separation of 

powers and, more fundamentally, the system of democratic self-government that such separation 

serves." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 294 F.3d 598, 602-03 (4th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal 

quotations omitted). 3 "In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to 

have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 

490, 498 (1975). A habeas petitioner has proper standing only if the petition is "signed and 

verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf." 28 

U.S.C. § 2242. If a petition is brought by someone acting on behalf of the person for whose 

relief the petition is intended, this "next friend" does not become a party to the action, but 



3 The cited 2002 decision of the Fourth Circuit in Hamdi ordered dismissal of a habeas 
case that a public defender and private citizen brought as purported next friends of Hamdi despite 
having no relationship with him. That deficiency was cured when Hamdi 's father filed a 
legitimate next-friend petition bearing the same style, which eventually culminated in the 2004 
decision of the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004). See Hamdi , 294 
F.3d at 600 n.l, 606-07 & n.4; see also Hamdi , 124 S. Ct. at 2636. Of course, neither the fact 
that the defect was cured, nor the Supreme Court's ultimate decision in the properly filed habeas 
case, undermines or casts doubt on the Fourth Circuit's holdings concerning next-friend standing 
in the defective case brought by the public defender and private citizen. 

-6- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 7 of 23 

"simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in 

interest." Whitmore , 495 U.S. at 163. 

Next friend standing is not automatically granted to anyone who seeks to pursue an action 

on behalf of another person, however. See id. Rather, consistent with the constitutional limits 

established by Article III, a litigant who asserts next friend standing bears the burden of 

satisfying the "two firmly rooted prerequisites" for next friend status articulated by the Supreme 

Court in Whitmore : 

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 163-64 (internal citations omitted). 

The petitions in the above-captioned cases do not meet either prong of the Whitmore test. 

First, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the detainees for whom habeas relief is sought 

cannot submit petitions on their own behalf. As explained in the Declaration of Frank Sweigart, 

the Department of Defense ("DoD") has notified each detainee at Guantanamo Bay of his right to 

file a petition for habeas corpus, and has provided each detainee with the address of the United 

States District Court in the event that he desires to submit his own petition to the Court. 4 See 

Sweigart Declaration, ff 3-5 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). As a result of these notifications, 55 



4 Detainees are afforded the opportunity regularly to send and receive mail through the 
mail system administered by DoD and through the International Committee for the Red Cross. 
Detainees are supplied pens, paper and envelopes regularly, and mail privileges cannot be 
revoked. See Sweigart Declaration, Ex. D. 

-7- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 8 of 23 

pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus have already been filed with the Court, 5 and at least 18 
detainees have written directly to counsel and secured assistance in filing petitions. 6 
Furthermore, the American Bar Association ("ABA") has agreed to recruit volunteer counsel for 
pro se petitioners and other detainees who request the assistance of counsel in filing a petition for 



5 See Khiali-Gul v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0877 (JR); Rahmattulah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0878 
(CKK); Mohammad v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0879 (RBW); Nasrat v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0880 (ESH); 
Slahi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0881 (JR); Rahman v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0882 (GK); Bostan v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-0883 (RBW); Muhibullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0884 (RMC); Mohammad v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-0885 (GK); Wahab v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0886 (EGS); Chaman v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
0887 (RWR); Gul v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0888 (CKK); Basardh v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0889 (ESH); 
Khan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0890 (RMC); Nasrullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0891 (RBW); Shaaban v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-0892 (CKK); Sohail v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0993 (RMU); Tohirjanovich v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-0994 (JDB); Slahi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0995 (JR); Mohammad v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
0996 (JR); Khudaidad v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0997 (PLF); Al Karim v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0998 
(RMU); Al-Khalaqi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0999 (RBW); Sarajuddin v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1000 
(PLF); Kahn v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1001 (ESH); Mohammed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1002 (EGS); 
Mangut v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1008 (JDB); Hamad v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1009 (JDB); Khan v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-1010 (RJL); Zuhoor v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1011 (JR); Ali Shah v. Bush , No. 05- 
CV-1012 (ESH); Salaam v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1013 (JDB); Mammar v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1233 
(RCL); Ahmed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1234 (EGS); Baqi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1235 (PLF); 
Abdulzaher v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1236 (RWR); Aminullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1237 (ESH); 
Ghalib v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1238 (CKK); Al Khaiy v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1239 (RJL); Altaiy v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-1240 (RCL); Bukhari v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1241 (RMC); Pirzai v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-1242 (RCL); Peerzai v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1243 (RCL); Alsawam v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
1244 (CKK); Mohammadi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1246 (RWR); Al Ginco v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
1310 (RJL); Ullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1311 (RCL); Al Bihani v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1312 (RJL); 
Sadkhan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1487 (RMC); Faizullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1489 (RMU); Faraj v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-1490 (PLF); Khan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1491 (JR); Ahmad v. Bush , No. 05- 
CV-1492 (RCL); Amon v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1493 (RBW); Idris v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1555 (JR). 

6 See Al Qosi v. Bush , No. 04-CV-1937 (PLF); Abdullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0023 
(RWR) (Rami Bin Saad Al-Oteibi); Al-Wazan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-329 (PLF); Alhami v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-359 (GK); Ameziane v. Bush , No. 05-CV-392 (ESH); Passim v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
497 (JR); Tumani v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0526 (RMU); Mokit v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0621 (PLF); 
Battayav v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0714 (RBW); Hamoodah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0795 (RJL); 
Mousovi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-l 124 (RMC) (Abdul Razak Iktiar Mohammed); Faraj v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-1590 (JDB) (case voluntarily dismissed because of earlier- filed pro se case submitted by 
petitioner); Zahir v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1623 (CKK); El-Marqodi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1649 
(PLF); Khandan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-l 697 (PLF). 

-8- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 9 of 23 

writ of habeas corpus. See Sweigart Declaration, ]} 7. DoD will soon begin delivering a 
notification to these detainees to advise them of the ABA's offer to secure them legal 
representation, and to provide them with the address of the ABA if they desire such assistance. 
See id. In addition, all detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the ability to send and receive mail, 
allowing them to contact family and friends, see Sweigart Declaration, Ex. D; supra , note 4, and 
they have been informed of the option of contacting friends and family to have them file habeas 
petitions on their behalf. 

Given that all detainees have been notified of their right to submit petitions for writ of 
habeas corpus; that they have the ongoing opportunity to send mail to family, friends, and the 
Court; and that the ABA has agreed to offer the detainees assistance in securing legal 
representation, it cannot simply be assumed that the detainees seeking habeas relief in the above- 
captioned cases cannot file petitions on their own behalf. The next friend petitions, however, do 
just that. See , e.g. , Nabil Petition, ]} 6 ("Because [Jamaal Kiyemba's] co-detainee and friend has 
been denied access to legal counsel and to the courts of the United States, Jamaal Kiyemba acts 
as his Next Friend, per 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2242."); Ahmed Doe Petition, 1 4 ("Because [Omar 
Deghayes's] friend has been denied access to legal counsel and to the courts of the United States, 
Omar Deghayes acts as his Next Friend."). See also Ahmed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR) 
(Order dated May 24, 2005) (dkt. no. 12) ("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."). Absent 
evidence that the detainees on whose behalf these cases are filed cannot submit petitions on their 

-9- 



Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 10 of 23 

own behalf, petitioners cannot demonstrate proper next friend standing, and the Court cannot 
exercise jurisdiction over the petitions in the above-captioned cases. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of 
Dallas , 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("It is a long-settled principle that standing cannot be 'inferred 
argumentatively from averments in the pleadings,' but rather 'must affirmatively appear in the 
record.'") (citations omitted). 

The purported "next friends" in the above-captioned cases have also failed to satisfy the 
second requirement of the Whitmore test — they have not established that they have a 
"significant relationship" with each detainee such that they are "truly dedicated to the[ir] best 
interests." See Whitmore , 495 U.S. at 163-64. 7 The requirement of a "significant relationship" 



7 The majority of Circuits that have been confronted with the issue have construed 
Whitmore to require a "significant relationship" as part of the second prong of the test for next 
friend standing. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 294 F.3d 598, 604 (4th Cir. 2002) (" Whitmore is thus 
most faithfully understood as requiring a would-be next friend to have a significant relationship 
with the real party in interest."); Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and Professors v. Bush , 310 F.3d 
1 153, 1 162 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Combining the 'significant relationship' requirement, however, 
with the 'dedicated to best interests' consideration . . . meets the concerns the Whitmore Court 
addressed."); T.W. v. Brophy , 124 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1997) ("It follows, as the Court 
suggested in the Whitmore case, that not just anyone who expresses an interest in the subject 
matter of a suit is eligible to be the plaintiffs next friend - that he 'must have some significant 
relationship with the real party in interest'"); Amerson v. Iowa , 59 F.3d 92, 93 n.3 (8th Cir. 1995) 
(under Whitmore , the "next friend has [the] burden to establish . . . that she has some "significant 
relationship with [the] real party in interest"); Zettlemoyer v. Horn , 53 F.3d 24, 27 n.4 (3d Cir. 
1995) (observing that "[t]he Whitmore Court also . . . suggested that the party 'must have some 
significant relationship with the real party in interest'"). See also Al Odah v. Bush , 321 F.3d 
1 134, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2003), rev'd on other grounds , Rasul v. Bush , 542 U.S. 466 (2004) (stating 
that the family members of Guantanamo detainees who filed habeas petitions on their behalf 
"demonstrated through affidavits that they are 'truly dedicated to the best interests of these 
individuals,' [and] that they have a 'significant relationship' with the detainees . . .") (citing 
Whitmore , 495 U.S. at 163-64). Although the Eleventh Circuit questioned whether Whitmore 
established "some significant relationship" as an independent requirement, it nevertheless noted 
the importance of a relationship in demonstrating whether a putative next friend "can show true 
dedication to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate." Sanchez- 
Velasco v. Secretary of the Dep't of Corrections , 287 F.3d 1015, 1026-27 (1 1th Cir. 2002). See 
also Centobie v. Campbell , 407 F.3d 1 149, 1151 (1 1th Cir. 2005) ("We conclude that Puzone is 

-10- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 11 of 23 

with the real party in interest is necessary to ensure that a next friend will genuinely pursue the 
interests of the person in custody (who at all times remains the real party in interest) and will not 
(1) merely use the litigation as a vehicle for advancing his own agenda or (2) assume he or she is 
in tune with the real party's desires and interests. See id. at 164 (cautioning against "intruders or 
uninvited meddlers" filing lawsuits on behalf of unwitting strangers). 

Thus, under the "significant relationship" requirement, courts have generally limited next 
friend standing to close relatives such as parents, siblings, and spouses. See, ej^, Vargas v. 
Lambert , 159 F.3d 1 161, 1 168 (9th Cir. 1998) (mother); Hamdi , 294 F.3d at 600 n.l (father); 
Smith ex rel. Missouri Pub. Defender Comm'n v. Armontrout , 812 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1987) 
(brother); In re Ferrens , No. 4746, 8 F. Cas. 1158, 1159 (S.D.N.Y. 1869) (wife). Attorneys who 
have previously represented an individual seeking habeas corpus have also been permitted to act 
as next friends based on that pre-existing relationship. See Sanchez -Velasco , 287 F.3d at 1026 
('"[S]ome significant relationship' does exist when the would-be next friend has served in a prior 
proceeding as counsel for the real party in interest and did so with his consent."). Distant 
relatives or simple acquaintances generally do not have a sufficient relationship to establish next 
friend standing, see, e^g,, Davis v. Austin , 492 F. Supp. 273, 274-76 (N.D. Ga. 1980) (neither 
detainee's first cousin nor a minister who had counseled detainee could sue as next friend) (cited 
with approval in Whitmore , 495 U.S. at 164), and petitions filed by total strangers purporting to 
act as next friends are typically dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See , e.g. , Hamdi , 294 F.3d at 



not 'truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf [s]he seeks to litigate,' and 
she does not have 'some significant relationship with the party in interest.'") (citing Hauser v. 
Moore , 223 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2000)). 

-11- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 12 of 23 

603-07 (dismissing petitions brought by a public defender and private citizen who had no 
relationship to the detainee). 

In the above-captioned cases, petitioners have not demonstrated that Omar Deghayes, 
Jamal Kiyemba, Shaker Aamer, Bisher Al Rawi, Usama Hasan Abu Kabir, Moazzam Begg and 
the unnamed detainee have any sort of "significant relationship" with the detainees on whose 
behalf they claim to seek habeas relief. The "authorizations" signed by the putative next friends 
contain boilerplate language stating that they understand what it means to act as a "next friend," 
and that they believe that the detainees on whose behalf they claim to seek habeas relief want 
legal representation to challenge their detention, without stating any legitimate basis for their 
belief beyond the fact that they have also been detained at Guantanamo Bay. 8 See , e.g. , Ahmed 
Doe , Deghayes Authorization (attached to Petition) (stating, "I know that they want legal 
assistance to secure their freedom ..." but not explaining how); Sadar Doe , Kabir Authorization 
(attached to Petition) (stating, "I . . . know that the following people who I know from this prison 
want lawyers and want me to assert their legal rights . . ." without explaining the basis for this 
knowledge). 9 Personal data about the detainees is scant, and in some cases, the so-called next 



8 If a detainee were able to act as next friend for another detainee simply based on the 
mere fact that they are both detained at Guantanamo, detainees or prisoners could purport to 
bring mass habeas corpus petitions simply by being able to list the identities of those detained 
alongside them, a situation that is surely inconsistent with standing jurisprudence. 

9 Former detainee Moazzam Begg, who purports to act as next friend to petitioner Adil 
Bin Muhammad Al Wirghi, see Declaration of Moazzam Begg (attached to Al Wirghi Petition), 
was transferred out of Guantanamo Bay in January 2005, before the wave of pro se petitions filed 
by Guantanamo Bay detainees and months before he signed the declaration claiming that he 
knows that petitioner Al Wirghi "would want [Moazzam Begg] to assert his legal rights and act 
as his Next Friend in bringing proceedings upon his behalf," purportedly based on a conversation 
regarding the denial of legal representation to Guantanamo Bay detainees. Id. 

-12- 



Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 13 of 23 

friends do not even know the detainees' full names. See, e.g. , Ahmed Doe , Nabil, Shafiiq , Sadar 
Doe . This dearth of basic biographical and personal information about the detainees on whose 
behalf habeas relief is sought indicates that the purported next friends do not share any 
meaningful relationship with these detainees and, therefore, cannot be determined to be acting in 
their best interests. See Ahmed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR) (Order dated May 24, 2005) 
(dkt. no. 12) ("The petition does not provide basic personal facts about Ahmed, such as his 
citizenship, his age, whether he is married or has a family, the place of his arrest or capture, and 
the places of detention, if any, prior to his being transported to Guantanamo Bay. The absence of 
such facts leaves the impression that Hassen does not know even this much about Ahmed and his 
situation."). Because even acquaintances cannot satisfy the requirement of a significant 
relationship under Whitmore , and the minimal information presented in the petitions indicates 
that the purported next friends merely know of another detainee or, at best, are mere 
acquaintances with the detainees on whose behalf they seek habeas relief, the individuals have 
failed to demonstrate that they are "truly dedicated to the [detainees'] best interests." Whitmore , 
495 U.S. at 163. Absent proof that evidences a significant relationship, petitioners cannot 
demonstrate proper next friend standing, and the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 
petitions in the above-captioned cases. 10 



10 Over 135 detainees at Guantanamo Bay have filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus 
through family members who arguably meet the "significant relationship" requirement. See , e.g. , 
Hatim v. Bush , No. 05 -CV- 1429 (RMU) (filed on behalf of two detainees by their siblings, 
Fatima Nasser Yahia Abdullah Kussrof and Ali Mohammed Saleh Al-Salahi); Rabbani v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-1607 (JR) (filed on behalf of two detainees by their wives, Malika and Fouzia 
Ahmmed); Sadkhan v. Bush , No. 05 -CV- 1679 (RJL) (filed on behalf of detainee by his father, 
Jabbar Sadkhan Al-Sahlani). 

-13- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 14 of 23 

In addition to the jurisdictional defect arising out of the lack of a significant relationship 
between the purported next friend and the party in interest, the phenomenon of detainees filing 
petitions purportedly on behalf of other detainees about whom they have little knowledge 
presents the practical difficulty of identifying the detainees for whom habeas relief is sought. 
Given the similar names or aliases of many of the approximately 500 individuals detained at 
Guantanamo Bay, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to correctly identify detainees based on 
the minimal information provided in the petitions. Respondents are often left trying to guess at a 
detainee's identity. Indeed, respondents have yet to identify more than two dozen purported 
petitioners as individuals presently detained at Guantanamo Bay, despite having requested 
additional information from these petitioners' counsel. Moreover, there have already been two 
instances in which respondents incorrectly identified petitioners in the Guantanamo Bay detainee 
cases; errors which, unfortunately, were not discovered until counsel visited and interviewed 
these detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Requiring petitions to be filed either through direct 
authorization by the detainees on whose behalf habeas relief is sought, or through individuals 
who can demonstrate a significant relationship with the detainees, would diminish the 
identification issues that have plagued the parties in the Guantanamo detainee litigation thus 
far. 11 

In sum, the petitions in the above-captioned cases fail to satisfy the standing requirements 
articulated by the Supreme Court in Whitmore . If petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the 



1 ' In addition, the phenomenon of detainees purporting to act as next friends results in 
counsel improperly abusing the next friend device in order merely to solicit the Guantanamo 
detainee population for clients, while in the meantime seeking various forms of relief with 
respect to anyone a purported next friend detainee, such as Mr. Deghayes, can remember having 
come in contact with. 

-14- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 15 of 23 

petitions were filed by legitimate next friends, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 

petitions, and they must be dismissed for lack of standing. 

II. If the Court Does Not Dismiss the Above-Captioned Cases, They Should be Stayed 
Pending Resolution of the Appeals of Decisions in the Other Guantanamo Detainee 
Cases Adjudicating Common Issues. 

If the Court finds that the petitions in the above-captioned cases were filed by legitimate 
next friends, 12 the Court should stay proceedings in these cases pending the resolution of the 
appeals in Khalid , Boumediene and In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases , which will determine 
whether and how these cases should proceed. 

On January 19, 2005, Judge Leon granted respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment 
in its entirety, concluding that constitutional protections do not extend to aliens outside sovereign 
United States territory, such as petitioners, and that petitioners also have no viable claims under 
U.S. statutory law or international law or treaties. See Khalid v. Bush , No. 04-CV-l 142 (RJL), 
Boumediene v. Bush , No. 04-CV-l 166 (RJL), 355 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D.D.C. 2005). The Khalid 
and Boumediene cases are currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. See Nos. 05-5062, 05-5063 
(D.C. Cir.). 



12 Even if the Court finds that petitioners have established next friend standing so that the 
Court can exercise jurisdiction over the petitions, the next friends should not be permitted to 
serve in this capacity beyond the time when counsel are permitted to meet with the detainees for 
whom habeas relief is sought. See Amended Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel 
Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in In re 
Guantanamo Detainee Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et al. (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2004), § IH.C. (attached 
hereto as Exhibit C) (permitting counsel two visits with a detainee before an authorization of 
representation by the detainee must be provided to respondents). At that time, counsel should 
determine these detainees' wishes concerning pursuing a challenge to their detention through the 
habeas petitions in these cases, such that the cases can then either be converted into direct 
petitions or be dismissed. 

-15- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 16 of 23 

On January 31, 2005, Judge Green entered an order (and memorandum opinion) in eleven 
other of the pending Guantanamo Bay detainee cases 13 denying in part and granting in part 
respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law. See Memorandum Opinion 
Denying in Part and Granting in Part Respondents' Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment as a 
Matter of Law in In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et al , 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 
(D.D.C. 2005). Contrary to the prior decision of Judge Leon, Judge Green, inter alia , determined 
that procedural "due process" protections apply to aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay and that 
the Combatant Status Review Tribunal proceedings the military has used to confirm detainees' 
status as enemy combatants do not satisfy these due process requirements. Id at 453-78. 
Further, in her decision, Judge Green agreed with the decision of Judge Robertson in Hamdan v. 
Rumsfeld , 344 F. Supp. 2d 152, 165 (D.D.C. 2004), rev'd , 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and 
concluded that the Third Geneva Convention is "self-executing" and can provide petitioners with 
a claim in a habeas action. 14 355 F. Supp. 2d at 478-80. Judge Green, however, dismissed 
petitioners' remaining constitutional, statutory, international law, and treaty claims. Id. at 480- 
81. 

Judge Green noted that her January 31, 2005 decision on respondents' motion to dismiss 
or for judgment "technically applie[d] only to the eleven cases contained in the [opinion's] 



13 Hicks v. Bush , No. 02-CV-0299 (CKK); Al Odah v. United States , No. 02-CV-0828 
(CKK); Habib v. Bush , No. 02-CV-1130 (CKK); Kurnaz v. Bush , No. 04-CV-1135 (ESH); 
O.K.v. Bush , No. 04-CV-l 136 (JDB); Begg v. Bush , No. 04-CV-l 137 (RMC); El-Banna v. 
Bush , No. 04-CV-l 144 (RWR); Gherebi v. Bush , No. 04-CV-l 164 (RBW); Anam v. Bush , No. 
04-CV-l 194 (HHK); Almurbati v. Bush , No. 04-CV-1227 (RBW); and Abdah v. Bush , No. 04- 
CV-l 254 (HHK). 

14 The D.C. Circuit held in Hamdan that the Third Geneva Convention does not give rise 
to claims enforceable in court. See Hamdan , 415 F.3d at 40. 

-16- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 17 of 23 

caption," but the Court nevertheless acknowledged that the opinion "addresse[d] issues common" 
to eight other Guantanamo Bay detainee cases that had been filed during or after the briefing and 
oral argument that resulted in the Court's opinion. 15 See id at 452 & n.15. 

On February 3, 2005, respondents filed a motion seeking certification of the January 31, 
2005 order for interlocutory appeal and filed a motion to stay all the Guantanamo Bay detainee 
cases pending at that time, consistent with the need for these cases to proceed in a coordinated 
fashion. Thus, the motion was filed as a motion for certification of order for interlocutory appeal 
and for a stay in the eleven cases in which the January 31, 2005 order was entered, and was filed 
by respondents solely as a motion to stay in the other then-pending cases. Judge Green certified 
her January 31, 2005 decision on respondents' motion to dismiss or for judgment for appeal and 
stayed proceedings in the eleven cases in which the January 31, 2005 order was entered, "for all 
purposes pending resolution of all appeals." Judge Green left the decision whether to stay cases 
other than the eleven to the individual judges in those cases. See Order Granting in Part and 
Denying in Part Respondents' Motion for Certification of Jan. 31, 2005 Orders and for Stay in In 
re Guantanamo Detainee Cases (Feb. 3, 2005) (Green, J.). 

Various petitioners in the eleven cases sought reconsideration of Judge Green's stay 
order, arguing that the Court should permit factual development and proceedings regarding 
detainee living conditions to go forward. See , e.g. , Petrs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order 



15 Belmar v. Bush , No. 04-CV-1897 (RMC); Al-Qosi v. Bush , No. 04-CV-1937 (PLF); 
Paracha v. Bush , No. 04-CV-2022 (PLF); Al-Marri v. Bush , No. 04-CV-2035 (GK); Zemiri v. 
Bush , No. 04-CV-2046 (CKK); Deghayes v. Bush , No. 04-CV-2215 (RMC); Mustapha v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-22 (JR); Abdullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-23 (RWR). 

-17- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 18 of 23 

Granting Stay Pending Appeal at 9-10 (dkt. no. 203 in Al Odah , No. 02-CV-0828 (CKK)). Judge 

Green, however, denied the motion for reconsideration 

in light of the substantial resources that would be expended and the 
significant burdens that would be incurred should this litigation go 
forward, and . . . [in] recognition that a reversal of the Court's 
January 3 1 , 2005 rulings would avoid the expenditure of such 
resources and incurrence of such burdens .... 

See Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal in In re 

Guantanamo Detainee Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et al , 355 F. Supp. 2d 482 (D.D.C. 2005) 

(Green, J.). 

On February 9, 2005, pursuant to Judge Green's certification, respondents filed a petition 
for interlocutory appeal of the January 31, 2005 decision with the D.C. Circuit, see 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1292(b), and requested that the appeal proceed on an expedited basis. Further, petitioners in 
the eleven cases subject to Judge Green's decision filed a cross-petition for interlocutory appeal 
with the D.C. Circuit and petitioners in Al-Odah appealed Judge Green's stay order. On March 
10, 2005, the D.C. Circuit accepted the interlocutory appeal. In addition, as noted above, 
petitioners in Khalid and Boumediene appealed Judge Leon's decision. Oral argument in both 
appeals is scheduled for September 8, 2005. 

In light of these pending appeals, several of the cases pending at the time of Judge 
Green's decision, but that Judge Green did not stay, have been stayed pending appeal. See 
Paracha , No. 04-CV-2022 (PLF) (dkt. no. 49); Al Marri , No. 04-CV-2035 (GK) (dkt. no. 26); 
Zemiri , No. 04-CV-2046 (CKK) (dkt. no. 32); Deghayes , No. 04-CV-2215 (RMC) (dkt. no. 7); 
Mustapha , No. 05-CV-22 (JR) (dkt no. 7); Abdullah , No. 05-CV-23 (RWR) (dkt. no. 16). As 
Judge Kessler stated in her stay order in Al Marri , 

-18- 



Case 1 :05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 19 of 23 

The opinions resolving Judge Leon's and Judge Green's cases 
encompass and discuss many of the precise issues raised in 
Respondents' Motion [to Stay]. Thus, until the Court of Appeals 
addresses these issues, the law in this Circuit is unsettled, since 
Judge Green and Judge Leon reached different conclusions about 
many of the issues before them. Requiring this case to proceed 
before appellate resolution of those cases therefore would involve 
an unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. 

Order dated March 8, 2005 in Al-Marri , No. 04-CV-2035 (GK), at 2. 

Since February 3, 2005 - the date respondents moved to stay all of the Guantanamo Bay 

detainee cases pending at that time - over 125 new petitions, involving approximately 200 

petitioners, have been filed. Respondents have filed motions to stay proceedings in these new 

cases for the reasons stated herein, and several Judges of this Court have stayed proceedings in 

the cases pending before them. 16 



16 See Al Mohammed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0247 (HHK) (dkt. no. 18); El-Mashad v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-0270 (JR) (dkt. no. 29); Al-Adahi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0280 (GK) (dkt. no. 
35); Al Joudi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0301 (GK) (dkt. no. 26); Al-Wazan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0329 
(PLF) (dkt. no. 15); Al-Anazi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0345 (JDB) (dkt. no. 21); Alhami v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-0359 (GK) (dkt. no. 20); Ameziane v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0392 (ESH) (dkt. no. 12); 
Sliti v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0429 (RJL) (dkt. no. 8); M.C. v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0430 (ESH) (dkt. 
no. 10); Kabir v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0431 (RJL) (dkt. no. 10); Payed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0454 
(RMU) (dkt. no. 4); Al-Shihry v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0490 (PLF) (dkt. no. 14); Aziz v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-492 (JR) (dkt. no. 16); Qassim v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0497 (JR) (dkt. no. 14); Al-Oshan v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-0520 (RMU) (dkt. no. 12); Tumani v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0526 (RMU) (dkt. no. 
5); Al-Oshan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0533 (RJL) (dkt. no. 6); Al Shamri v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0551 
(RWR) (dkt. no. 10); Salahi v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0569 (JR) (dkt. no. 8); Mammar v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-0573 (RJL) (dkt. no. 5); Al-Sharekh v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0583 (RJL) (dkt. no. 9); 
Magram v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0584 (CKK) (dkt. no. 9); Al Rashaidan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0586 
(RWR) (dkt. no. 10); Mokit v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0621 (PLF) (dkt. no. 13); Al Daini v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-0634 (RWR) (dkt. no. 10); Ahmed v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR) (dkt. no. 16); 
Battayav v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0714 (RBW) (dkt. no. 12); Adem v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0723 
(RWR) (dkt. no. 13); Hamlily v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0763 (JDB) (dkt. no. 10); Imran v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-0764 (CKK) (dkt. no. 6); Al Hamamy v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0766 (RJL) (dkt. no. 6); 
Hamoodah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0795 (RJL) (dkt. no. 13); Rahmattullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
0878 (CKK) (dkt. no. 3); Nasrat v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0880 (ESH) (dkt. no. 4); Slahi v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-0881 (RWR) (dkt. no. 5); Chaman v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0887 (RWR) (dkt. no. 7); Gul v. 

-19- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 20 of 23 

If the Court finds that the above-captioned cases have been filed by legitimate next 
friends, the cases should nevertheless be stayed pending the appeals of the other Guantanamo 
Bay detainee cases. 17 The petitions in these cases raise legal issues that were squarely addressed 



Bush , No. 05-CV-0888 (CKK) (dkt. no. 3); Basardh v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0889 (ESH) (dkt. no. 
4); Shaaban v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0892 (CKK) (dkt. no. 3); Tohirjanovich v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
0994 (JDB) (dkt. no. 4); Al Karim v. Bush , No. 05-CV-0998 (RMU) (dkt. no. 3); Al-Khalaqi v. 
Bush , No. 05-CV-0999 (RBW) (dkt. no. 3); Kahn v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1001 (ESH) (dkt. no. 3); 
Mangut v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1008 (JDB) (dkt. no. 2); Hamad v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1009 (JDB) 
(dkt. no. 4); Khan v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1010 (RJL) (dkt. no. 3); Ali Shah v. Bush , No. 05-CV- 
1012 (ESH) (dkt. no. 3); Salaam v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1013 (JDB) (dkt. no. 2); Al-Hela v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-1048 (RMU) (dkt. no. 12); Zalita v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1220 (RMU) (dkt. no. 3); 
Aminullah v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1237 (ESH) (dkt. no. 3); Ghalib v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1238 
(CKK) (dkt. no. 3); Alsawam v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1244 (CKK) (dkt. no. 3); Mohammed v. Bush , 
No. 05-CV-1347 (GK) (dkt. no. 7); Saib v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1353 (RMC) (Minute Order dated 
August 1, 2005); Hatim v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1429 (RMU) (dkt. no. 16); Faizullah v. Bush , No. 
05-CV-1489 (RMU) (dkt. no. 3); Dhiab v. Bush , No. 05-CV-1457 (GK) (Minute Order dated 
August 29, 2005). 

17 The Court has the authority to stay proceedings in habeas cases, even prior to the filing 
of a response. Pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 
Courts (the "2254 Rules"), which are applicable to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than 
those arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, such as the petitions in these cases, see 2254 Rule 1(b), a 
court may extend the deadline for responses to habeas petitions beyond the time limits set forth 
in 28 U.S.C. § 2243 — the 2254 Rules do not indicate a fixed deadline for responding to habeas 
petitions, and they supersede the time limits set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Rule 4 provides that 
"the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed 
time, or to take other action the judge may order. . . ." See also Bleitner v. Welborn , 15 F.3d 
652, 653-54 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[T]he Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 
District Courts, which have the force of a superseding statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) . . . loosened 
up the deadline for responses. Rule 4 leaves it up to the district court to fix the deadline."); 
Castillo v. Pratt , 162 F. Supp. 2d 575, 577 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (denying § 2241 petitioner's request 
for expedited consideration because "[t]he discretion afforded by Rule 4 of the 2254 Rules 
"prevails" over the strict time limits of 28 U.S.C. § 2243"); Kramer v. Jenkins , 108 F.R.D. 429, 
431 (N.D. 111. 1985) (denying § 2241 petitioner's motion for correction of court scheduling order 
because "in the conflict between Rule 4 of the 2254 Rules and 28 U.S.C. § 2243, Rule 4 must 
prevail"). Furthermore, the 2254 Rules have provided courts with the discretion to consider the 
burdens involved in filing responses to habeas petitions when implementing case management 
schedules. See Advisory Committee Notes to 2254 Rules; see also Lonchar v. Thomas , 5 17 U.S. 
314, 325 (1996) (stating that the 2254 Rules confer "ample discretionary authority" on district 
courts "to tailor the proceedings" in habeas cases). See also Landis v. North American Co. , 299 

-20- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 21 of 23 

by the opinions in In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases , Khalid , and Boumediene and that are raised 
in the appeals, including: (1) whether the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution and, if so, whether the procedures implemented by 
respondents to determine the status of petitioners violate their Fifth Amendment rights; (2) 
whether the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Third Geneva Convention; 18 and (3) 
whether the petitioners have stated valid claims based on various other legal theories, including 
other Constitutional provisions, other international treaties, Military regulations, the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Alien Tort Statute, and customary international law. It makes 
no sense for proceedings related to the merits of these cases, such as the submission of factual 
returns in response to orders to show cause regarding the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, to 
go forward when decisions from the D.C. Circuit on the related Guantanamo detainee appeals, 
which are proceeding in an expedited fashion, will determine the legal analyses applicable to 
these cases and, indeed, whether and how these cases should proceed. Thus, if the petitions are 
not dismissed for lack of proper next friend standing, the Court should hold all proceedings in 
this case in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeals of decisions by Judges of this Court in 
the other Guantanamo Bay detainee cases. 19 



U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) ("The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in 
every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort 
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."); id. at 256 (noting propriety of stay in cases "of 
extraordinary public moment"). 

18 See note 14, supra . 

19 In seeking a stay to the extent the next friend petitioners are determined to satisfy the 
applicable requirements, however, respondents do not intend thereby to block counsel access to 
properly represented petitioners. To that end, if proper next friend standing is found, respondents 
would not object to entry of the protective order previously entered in other Guantanamo 

-21- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 22 of 23 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated, the Court should order petitioners to show cause why these cases 
should not be dismissed for lack of proper next friend standing. If petitioners are able to 
establish proper standing, the Court should stay further proceedings in these cases, except as 
noted above, pending resolution of the appeals of Judge Leon's decision in Khalid and 
Boumediene and Judge Green's January 31, 2005 decision in In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases . 



Dated: August 31, 2005 



Respectfully submitted, 

PETER D. KEISLER 

Assistant Attorney General 

KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN 
United States Attorney 

DOUGLAS N. LETTER 
Terrorism Litigation Counsel 

/s/ Preeya M. Noronha 



JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431 134) 
VrNCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191) 
TERRY M. HENRY 
JAMES J. SCHWARTZ 
PREEYA M. NORONHA 
ROBERT J. KATERBERG 



detainee cases, along with appropriate supplementary orders, to permit such access. See 
Amended Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States 
Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et 
al. (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2004) (attached as Exhibit C); Order Supplementing and Amending Filing 
Procedures Contained in November 8, 2004 Amended Protective Order in In re Guantanamo 
Detainee Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et al. (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2004) (attached as Exhibit D); Order 
Addressing Designation Procedures for "Protected Information" in In re Guantanamo Detainee 
Cases , No. 02-CV-0299, et al. (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 2004) (attached as Exhibit E). Respondents' 
lack of objection to entry of these orders in a properly filed case, however, is without prejudice to 
their right to challenge any particular terms of these orders in any future proceedings as 
appropriate. 

-22- 



Case1:05-cv-01458-UNA-AK Document 2 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 23 of 23 



NICHOLAS J. PATTERSON 
ANDREW I. WARDEN 
EDWARD H. WHITE 

Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Room 7144 

Washington, DC 20530 

Tel: (202)514-4107 

Fax: (202)616-8470 



Attorneys for Respondents 



23-