Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami v. Rodriguez et al.

Court	United States Court of Appeals, United States
Case number	10-5393
Decision title	Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01254)
Decision date	21 February 2012
Parties	Talal Al-Zahrani Nashwan Ali Abdullah Al-Salami Esteban Rodriguez et al.
Categories	Terrorism
Keywords	damages, detention, Guantanamo Bay, Terrorism, torture
Links	Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01254)
Other countries involved	Saudi Arabia Yemen

Summary

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were detained at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) from 2002. In 2006, both Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells.

In January 2009, their families brought a civil complaint, seeking damages for the arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture of the two detainees. In February 2010, the US District Court ruled that the claims were barred by the 2006 Military Commissions Act since under Section 7 of the Act, the men had been properly detained, thus barring the court from having jurisdiction over the case.

In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling.

On 21 February 2012, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the families of Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.

Procedural history

In 2006, Yasser Al-Zahrani and Salah Al-Salami committed suicide in their cells. In January 2009, a civil claim was brought by their families under the Alien Tort Claims Act for damages for arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture. See Al-Zahrani et al. v. Rumsfeld et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Complaint, 7 January 2009.

On 26 June 2009, the United States government moved to dismiss both the claims brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act as well as the Constitutional claims.

On 16 February 2010, the District Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the adduced claims.

On 16 March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence (see Al-Zahrani et al. v. Rumsfeld et al., Case No. 09-cv-00028, Motion for Reconsideration in Light of Newly-Discovered Evidence, 16 March 2010). On 15 April 2010, the Government of the United States filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs filed their reply on 3 May 2010.

On 29 September 2010, the District Court denied the motion to reconsider, finding no evidence to contradict the previous reasoning.

Legally relevant facts

Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen were transferred in January 2002 to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) after being deemed to be “enemy combatants”. In 2006, Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami allegedly committed suicide in their cells. In January 2009, a civil complaint was filed in the US District Court for Colombia by the families of two former detainees at Guantanamo Bay, seeking damages against former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld as well as more than 100 military officers. The complaint was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act, seeking damages for arbitrary detention, cruel treatment and torture, claiming that the detainees were subjected to acts of torture and abuse. (pp. 2-3)

In February 2010, the District Court ruled that its jurisdiction over the claims was barred by the Military Commissions Act. In March 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that eye witness accounts suggested that Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami died while being tortured. In September 2010, the District Court rejected the motion on the grounds that the new evidence did not change the previous ruling. (pp. 2-3)

Core legal questions

Did the District Court err in its dismissal of the action brought by Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Para. 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act 2009.
Para. 2241(e) of the US Code.

Court's holding and analysis

“The Court of Appeals affirm the judgment of dismissal rendered by the District Court since “28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) deprives this court of jurisdiction over appellants’ claims. We further hold that the Supreme Court did not declare § 2241(e)(2) unconstitutional in Boumediene and the provision retains vitality to bar those claims. We therefore conclude that the decision of the District Court dismissing the claims should be affirmed, although for a lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than for failure to state a claim under Rule12(b)(6)” (p. 8).

Instruments cited

Related cases

Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene et al. v. Bush et al.,Civil Actions Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196, 12 June 2008;
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Talal Al-Zahrani et al. v. Donald Rumsfeld et al., Civil Action 09-0028 (ESH), 16 February 2010;
US District Court for the District of Columbia,Al-Zahrani et al. v. Rumsfeld et al., Civil Action No. 09-0028 (ESH), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 September 2010.