Almerfedi v. Obama
904 F.Supp.2d 1, 2012 WL 5508383 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a moving party must demonstrate that newly discovered evidence would probably have changed the outcome of the challenged decision, or that misconduct by the opposing party substantially interfered with the movant's ability to fully and fairly present their case.
Facts:
- After petitioner Hussain Salem Mohammad Almerfedi's habeas case was decided on appeal, the government produced new documents on five separate occasions.
- The documents contained exculpatory material indicating that the government's key witness, another detainee known as ISN-230, had been severely mistreated while in detention.
- Other documents produced by the government characterized ISN-230 as being unreliable and a liar.
- Additionally, a 2009 Department of Defense Inspector General report, which recently became public, discussed the use of mind-altering drugs on some Guantanamo detainees.
- Almerfedi argued that this newly revealed information fundamentally undermined the credibility of ISN-230, the primary witness against him, and thus warranted reopening his case.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Hussain Salem Mohammad Almerfedi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- After a merits hearing, the District Court granted the petition.
- The government, as respondent, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded with instructions to deny the petition.
- Almerfedi, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied.
- Almerfedi then filed the present Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b) in the U.S. District Court, seeking to reopen the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a habeas petitioner entitled to relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) based on newly discovered evidence that impeaches a witness whose testimony the appellate court explicitly deemed immaterial to its decision to uphold the petitioner's detention?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, J.
No. A habeas petitioner is not entitled to relief from judgment where the newly discovered evidence, while potentially damaging to a witness's credibility, would not have probably changed the outcome of the appellate court decision being challenged. The court found that the newly discovered evidence regarding witness ISN-230's unreliability did not meet the requirements for relief under either Rule 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(3). For relief under Rule 60(b)(2), the new evidence must be of such importance that it 'probably would have changed the outcome.' Here, the D.C. Circuit's decision to reverse the grant of habeas rested on three independent facts and explicitly stated that it did not rely on ISN-230's statements. Therefore, evidence further undermining ISN-230's credibility, however strong, would not have altered the appellate court's rationale. For relief under Rule 60(b)(3) for government misconduct, Almerfedi failed to show misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, as the government's rolling disclosures complied with court orders that were structured around Almerfedi's own request for an expedited hearing. Furthermore, there was no prejudice because the new information could not have affected the legal basis for the D.C. Circuit's decision.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the high bar for obtaining relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b), particularly in the context of Guantanamo habeas litigation. It clarifies that the materiality of new evidence is judged against the specific reasoning of the controlling appellate decision, not the trial record as a whole. The decision underscores the principle of finality in litigation, showing that even significant new exculpatory or impeachment evidence will not reopen a case if the court of last resort deemed that line of evidence unnecessary for its holding. This creates a significant challenge for petitioners seeking to overturn adverse judgments based on post-judgment disclosures from the government.
