UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOHAMMED NAZIR BIN LEP, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 20-3344 (JDB) JOSEPH R. BIDEN et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are two motions: respondents’ motion to hold petitioner Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep’s habeas petition in abeyance until after his military commission proceedings are complete—Resp’ts’ Mot. to Hold Pet. in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military Commission Proceedings [ECF No. 62] (“Abeyance Mot.”)—and Bin Lep’s cross-motion to enjoin the military commission proceedings, Cross-Mot. for Permanent Inj. [ECF No. 64] (“Cross-Mot.”). Because Bin Lep’s military commission proceedings have begun and are moving forward, and because this Court is bound by the principles articulated in Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975), and In re Al-Nashiri (Al-Nashiri II), 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016), the Court will grant respondents’ Abeyance Motion, deny Bin Lep’s Cross-Motion as moot, and abstain from adjudicating the majority of the claims in Bin Lep’s habeas petition. But because the Court’s consideration of two of Bin Lep’s habeas claims—specifically the challenges to his High Value Detainee designation and respondents’ alleged interference with his ability to request a mixed medical commission—is not likely to interfere with Bin Lep’s military commission proceedings, the Court will permit those two claims to proceed in this habeas litigation. 1 Background I. Bin Lep’s Detention and the Habeas Petition Bin Lep is a Malaysian citizen who was seized by local authorities in Thailand in 2003 and then transferred to CIA custody due to his alleged participation in al Qaeda operations against the United States. Mem. Op., June 25, 2021 [ECF No. 86] (“June 2021 Mem. Op.”) at 2; Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 40] (“Habeas Pet.”) ¶¶ 1, 8, 16. The United States has held Bin Lep at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay since 2006. June 2021 Mem. Op. at 2; Habeas Pet. ¶ 8. In 2017, prosecutors swore charges against Bin Lep related to his alleged participation in bombings in Indonesia. Habeas Pet. ¶¶ 23–24. 1 Pursuant to Rule 601 of the Rules for Military Commissions (“RMC”), the swearing of charges against an individual is just one step in initiating a trial by a military commission; the sworn charges must also be referred to a specific military commission by the appropriate convening authority. See RMC 601(a) Discussion; see also June 2021 Mem. Op. at 2–4 (further describing the procedure for initiating military commission proceedings and the procedural history of the charges against Bin Lep). Bin Lep filed the habeas petition at issue in this proceeding in October 2020. See generally Habeas Pet. At that time, the sworn charges against him had not yet been referred to a military commission. Id. ¶¶ 26–27. Bin Lep’s habeas petition raises 10 claims. Id. ¶¶ 66–96. The first two claims are that respondents violated Bin Lep’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and Fifth Amendment right to due process by holding him in custody for over a decade without charges, notice, or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals