Abdal Razak Ali v. Barack H. Obama

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABDUL RAZAK ALI, ) )

Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 10-1020 (RJL) )

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., ) )

Respondents. )

MEMORA~ ORDER (JunelJ_, 2012) [#1487]

On January 11, 20 11, this Court denied petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Mem. Order [Dkt. #1448], and issued its final judgment on March 9, 2011, Final J. [Dkt. #1472]. Thereafter, petitioner filed two additional motions requesting a new merits hearing and sanctions, [Dkt. ##1447, 1451], as well as two supplements to those motions, [Dkt. ## 1468, 1487]. The Court denied both motions. See Order [Dkt. #1474] (Mar. 11, 2011) (denying Dkt. #1447); Min. Order (Mar. 11, 2011) (denying Dkt. #1451). On March 8, 2011, petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal [Dkt. ##1471, 1485] to this Court's finaljudgment. 2 On May 9, 2011, however, petitioner filed a motion with our Court of Appeals requesting that it hold petitioner's appeal in abeyance pending this Court's determination ofhis pending "Rule 60(b) motion[s]." Unopposed Mot. to Stay Appeal Pending Resolution of Appellant's Rule 60(b) Mot., Ali v. Obama, No. 11-5102 (D.C. Cir.), filed May 9, 2011 [Dkt. #1306982]. Our Circuit Court granted that motion on May 13,2011, Ali v. Obama, No. 11-5102, slip op. at 1 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2011) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 12.1), and on May 17, 2011, this Court denied petitioner's first supplemental motion [Dkt. # 1468], finding petitioner had failed to "carr[y] the burden required to re-open his case." Mem. Order [Dkt. #1496] at 2. 3 Currently before the Court is petitioner's Second Supplement to Motion (and Renewed Motion) For Entry of the Writ Or, In the Alternative, a New Hearing and For Sanctions ("2d Supp. Mot.") [Dkt. #1487]. Petitioner now asks this Court to grant a new merits hearing, based on two new "facts": (1) a recently published photograph, which "the government ... contends" is of petitioner, that he claims "is not of the same person shown to this Court at the hearing as being the petitioner," 2d Supp. Mot. at 1; and (2) the statement of a former prosecutor with the Office of Military Commissions who admits "that photo identifications of detainees by other detainees w[ ere] often rigged," id. at 2. The Government opposes the motion claiming in essence that the petitioner's arguments, even if true, do not meet the standard necessary to warrant reopening his merits hearing.

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record herein, and I find no reason to depart from my previous decisions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner Abdul Razak Ali's, a.k.a. Saeed Bakhouche's, Second Supplement to Motion (and Renewed Motion) For Entry of the Writ Or, In the Alternative, a New Hearing and for Sanctions [Dkt. #1487], is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge