Paracha v. Biden ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
SAIFULLAH PARACHA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2567 (PLF)
)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., )
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani national, is a detainee at the United States
Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On October 2, 2021, Mr. Paracha filed his second
Petition for Habeas Corpus and Other Relief (“Paracha II Pet.”) [Dkt. No. 1] before this Court.
Previously, on January 23, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Paracha’s first petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Paracha v. Trump, 453 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Paracha I”). Mr. Paracha
appealed that ruling. Before briefing was completed on Mr. Paracha’s appeal, the court of
appeals granted the United States’ motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending that court’s en
banc decision in Al Hela v. Biden, No. 19-5079. See Order, Paracha v. Biden, No. 20-5039
(D.C. Cir. June 2, 2021) (per curiam).
On October 4, 2021, Mr. Paracha moved in the court of appeals “for a limited
remand to the district court for consideration of issues relevant to his habeas petition that were
not available at the time the petition was filed, litigated, and decided,” namely, the withdrawal of
U.S. troops from Afghanistan and President Biden’s accompanying announcement that the war
in Afghanistan has ended, and a determination by the Periodic Review Board (“PRB”) clearing
Mr. Paracha for release. Appellant’s Motion for Limited Remand and Continuance of the Stay
of His Appeal, Paracha v. Biden, No. 20-5039, at 1-2 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 4, 2021). That motion
remains pending.
Mr. Paracha’s recently filed, second habeas petition before this Court alleges that
those same two developments warrant issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Paracha II Pet. at 4-5.
First, U.S. and allied military forces and personnel have left Afghanistan, and President Biden
announced that “[t]he war in Afghanistan is now over,” and second, the PRB determined that
“continuing law of war detention is no longer necessary” for Mr. Paracha. Id. Mr. Paracha
therefore contends that the United States lacks authority to detain him. Id. at 5. He also raises
several claims for “other relief.” Id. at 6-11.
On October 25, 2021, the United States filed its Return to Petition for Habeas
Corpus and Response to Petition for Other Relief [Dkt. No. 10] in Paracha II. The United States
argues that the Court should hold in abeyance Counts I and II of Mr. Paracha’s second habeas
petition, concerning the end of hostilities in Afghanistan and the PRB’s determination, until the
D.C. Circuit rules on Mr. Paracha’s motion for remand in Paracha I. The United States suggests
that if the court of appeals remands, this Court should consolidate all of Mr. Paracha’s habeas
arguments across both of his habeas petitions “into a single brief to which Respondents can
respond.” Id. at 3. The United States also suggests that this Court should now dismiss Mr.
Paracha’s claims for “other relief,” which it argues “are all categorically barred, either by 28
U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) as non-habeas claims, or by appropriations statutes that have long prohibited
transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States,” and, alternatively, that these claims fail
“for want of standing or on their merits.” Id. at 2-3.
2
If the court of appeals grants the motion for partial remand of Paracha I, this
Court would have before it two habeas petitions filed by Mr. Paracha, each raising what appear
to be identical arguments about the U.S. troop withdrawal and end of hostilities in Afghanistan
and the PRB’s determination regarding Mr. Paracha. The Court agrees with the United States
that permitting Mr. Paracha to pursue parallel habeas proceedings involving overlapping grounds
for relief, whether it be in the district court or the court of appeals, would not serve the interests
of judicial economy. Cf. M.M.M. ex rel. J.M.A. v. Sessions, 318 F. Supp. 3d 310, 312
(D.D.C. 2018). The Court therefore will hold in abeyance Mr. Paracha’s second habeas petition
until the court of appeals rules on Mr. Paracha’s motion for limited remand. The Court likewise
will hold in abeyance Mr. Paracha’s Motion for Order to Show Cause re Discovery [Dkt.
No. 11], Motion for More Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 12], and Renewed Motion for Discovery
[Dkt. No. 13].
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter shall be HELD IN ABEYANCE
until such time as the D.C. Circuit issues a ruling on the motion for limited remand in Paracha v.
Biden, No. 20-5039; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint status report
within fourteen days of any ruling by the court of appeals resolving the motion for partial remand
advising this Court of how they wish to proceed and proposing any appropriate deadlines.
SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
/s/
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: November 12, 2021
3