Obaydullah v. Barack Obama
402 U.S. App. D.C. 149
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Obaydullah is a 29-year-old Afghan detainee at Guantánamo Bay.
- He was captured on July 21, 2002 during a raid on his Afghan residence based on pre-raid intelligence.
- A notebook with explosive diagrams and 23 buried anti-tank mines were found near his residence.
- Obaydullah stated the notebook depicted generator wiring and claimed the mines were for someone named Karim.
- He was transferred to Guantánamo; habeas petition filed July 7, 2008; district court denied on November 30, 2010.
- The government later sought military commissions; after Obama’s suspension, habeas proceedings resumed and the court again denied the petition; this appeal focuses on jurisdiction and the district court’s evidentiary and discovery rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRAP 4(a)(4)(A) tolling can preserve jurisdiction despite an untimely Rule 59(e) motion | Obaydullah, via Rule 59(e) tolling, preserved jurisdiction. | Government argues tolling is either timely or waived; jurisdiction may be lacking. | Jurisdiction retained; Rule 59(e) tolling can preserve appeal under FRAP 4(a)(4)(A). |
| Whether the district court correctly applied the AUMF to Detain Obaydullah | Detention not adequately supported; alternative explanations for notebook/mines. | Evidence shows Obaydullah part of an al Qaeda bomb cell; corroborated by pre-raid intel and raid findings. | Obaydullah is detainable under the AUMF; detention sustained. |
| Whether discovery denials and handling of classified sources were proper | Requests to reveal source identity and coercion evidence were improperly denied. | Classified sources and sensitive data may be protected; CMO allowed redactions. | District court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error in discovery rulings. |
| Whether the court properly considered coerced or unreliable statements | Statements at the raid could be coerced or unreliable. | Evidence at the raid corroborated by independent findings; coercion not proven. | No clear error; statements credited were supported by other evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional time limits governing appeals; Bowles held timing is jurisdictional)
- Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (time limit for filing appeal is jurisdictional; unique circumstances exception rejected)
- Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964) (overruled as to exception to jurisdictional rules in Bowles)
- Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140 (2007) (FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) tolling treated as claim-processing rule; forfeitable)
- Youkelsone v. FDIC, 660 F.3d 473 (2011) (FRAP 4(a) provisions not codified by statute are claim-processing rules)
- In re Sealed Case (Bowles), 624 F.3d 482 (2010) (FRAP 4(a)(6) reopening is jurisdictional; cannot be bypassed by equities)
- Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416 (2010) (court may consider credibility and pre-raid evidence for detainment)
- Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8 (2010) (AUMF authority to detain those part of al Qaeda or Taliban)
- Alsabri v. Obama, 684 F.3d 1298 (2012) (legal standard for de novo review on whether detainee is part of al Qaeda)
- Almerfedi v. Obama, 654 F.3d 1 (2011) (JT membership probative of al Qaeda association)
- Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (2008) (assessments of ‘part of’ al Qaeda; corroboration allowed)