Paracha v. Bush ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    ____________________________________
    )
    SAIFULLAH PARACHA,                  )
    )
    Petitioner,       )
    )                  Civil Action No. 04-2022 (PLF)
    v.                            )
    )
    BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,            )
    )
    Respondents.      )
    ___________________________________ )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On June 16, 2016, this Court denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment,
    which sought to invalidate certain Acts of Congress, or sections thereof, as bills of attainder in
    violation of the Constitution. Memorandum Opinion and Order (June 16, 2016) [Dkt. No. 439].
    Petitioner now asks the Court to enter final judgment on that distinct claim pursuant to Rule
    54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allow petitioner to pursue an appeal.
    “Normally, an order in a case involving multiple claims or defendants is not final
    (and therefore not appealable) until the district court has ‘disposed of all claims against all
    parties.’” United States v. All Assets Held in Account No. XXXXXXXX, 
    314 F.R.D. 12
    , 14
    (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 
    630 F.3d 217
    ,
    221 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). “This approach avoids piecemeal appellate review and also ‘protects the
    district court’s independence, prevents multiple, costly, and harassing appeals, and advances
    efficient judicial administration.’” Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. All Plumbing, Inc., 
    812 F.3d 153
    , 156
    (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Blue v. Dist. of Columbia Pub. Sch., 
    764 F.3d 11
    , 15 (D.C. Cir.
    2014)). Rule 54(b), however, permits the district court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to
    one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties” upon an express finding that “there is no just
    reason for delay.” FED R. CIV P. 54(b). “Absent an express determination that the District Court
    has entered final judgment because there is no reason for delay, the Court of Appeals lacks
    jurisdiction to review an Order that decides fewer than all the claims for relief.” Detroit Int’l
    Bridge Co. v. Gov’t of Canada, 
    53 F. Supp. 3d 28
    , 31 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Blackman c. Dist.
    of Columbia, 
    456 F.3d 167
    , 175-76 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
    “[I]n deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual
    final judgments [], a district court must take into account judicial administrative interests as well
    as the equities involved” including “such factors as whether the claims under review were
    separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims
    already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more
    than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co.,
    
    446 U.S. 1
    , 8 (1980); see also Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P., 
    606 F.3d 800
    , 806 (D.C. Cir.
    2010). “The D.C. Circuit has directed the district courts to ‘supply a statement of reasons’ when
    ruling on a motion under Rule 54(b).” Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Gov’t of Canada, 53 F. Supp.
    3d at 31 (quoting Taylor v. F.D.I.C., 
    132 F.3d 753
    , 761 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).
    In his initial motion, petitioner argues that his “motion for relief from the
    congressional bills of attainder was unrelated to and independent of his petition for habeas
    corpus.” Petitioner’s Motion at 5 [Dkt. No. 440]. The government has opposed petitioner’s
    motion because, it argues, those conclusory statements in petitioner’s initial motion “fail to
    explain why there is no just reason to delay an appeal until the conclusion of the merits of his
    2
    petition or, conversely, why the equities may instead warrant an immediate appeal.”
    Government’s Opposition at 3 [Dkt. No. 442].1
    The Court agrees that the arguments in petitioner’s motion are conclusory, but
    nonetheless concludes that there is no just reason for delay — for much the same reason that the
    Court denied petitioner’s motion for lack of standing: petitioner’s motion, by his own admission,
    is completely separate and unrelated to his pending habeas corpus petition because resolution of
    the bill of attainder claim will have no impact whatsoever upon his continued detention, nor will
    it actually affect his ability to be transferred. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3-4 (June
    16, 2016) [Dkt. No. 439]. The bill of attainder claim also does not involve the same or similar
    issues as the habeas petition. See 
    id.
     Petitioner’s new bill of attainder claim thus is wholly
    severable from his still-pending habeas petition. The Court also notes that petitioner’s habeas
    petition has been pending since 2004, and only recently become active again after being stayed at
    petitioner’s own request since 2011. The delay until an appeal could be taken from all claims
    therefore could be considerable.
    For these reasons, the Court expressly finds that there is no just reason to delay
    the entry of final judgment and an immediate appeal. It therefore will grant petitioner’s motion
    for judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) in separate order issued this same day.
    SO ORDERED.
    /s/_________________________
    PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
    United States District Judge
    DATE: July 29, 2016
    1
    The government noted, however, that “[i]t may be that Petitioner can muster
    sufficient reasons, but he has yet to do so” and that “the Government [therefore was] not in a
    position to consent to Petitioner’s request.” Opp. at 3-4.
    3