904 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition on August 16, 2005, seeking relief from detention.
- Merits hearing occurred March 3–5, 2010; Court granted petition for writ of habeas corpus in an order dated July 8, 2010.
- Court of Appeals reversed, remanding with instructions to deny the petition on June 10, 2011; Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 11, 2012.
- Post-merits disclosures (March 10, 2011 to December 4, 2011) produced exculpatory material about ISN-230, alleging mistreatment and reliability concerns.
- Government also produced a 2009 DoD Inspector General report regarding mind-altering drugs used on Guantanamo detainees; petitioner argues this affects ISN-230 credibility.
- Rule 60(b) motion filed to reopen for discovery and potential evidentiary proceedings; government opposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 60(b)(2) newly discovered evidence standard | Almerfedi argues exculpatory material could have changed the outcome. | Disclosures do not establish evidence likely to change outcome; ISN-230's credibility was not outcome-determinative. | No relief under Rule 60(b)(2); evidence not likely to have changed the outcome. |
| Rule 60(b)(3) misconduct | Government misconduct in discovery and disclosure prejudiced petitioner. | No misconduct proven; disclosures were in line with court orders and overall proceedings were compliant. | No relief under Rule 60(b)(3); petitioner failed to prove prejudice from misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckworth v. United States, 808 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2011) (newly discovered evidence must be of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome)
- Monroe Street Ltd. Partnership v. Riasco L.L.C., 473 B.R. 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (prejudice and standard for Rule 60(b)(3) relief in bankruptcy context)
- Epps v. Howes, 573 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2008) (discusses standards for discovery and relief)
- Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) (misconduct must show prejudice for Rule 60(b)(3) relief)
- Summers v. Howard University, 374 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (nefarious intent not required for misconduct; prejudice required)