Opinion
Civil Action 04-2022 (PLF) 21-2567 (PLF)
06-06-2022
SAIFULLAH PARACHA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al.. Respondents. SAIFULLAH PARACHA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al.. Respondents.
[UNDER SEAL]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Saifullah Paracha has filed a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Preliminary Injunction for Departure at His Expense, and Opportunity to Consent to Security Assurances. See Notice of Protected Filing, Civil Action No. 21-2567 [Pkt. No 38]. Among other things, Mr. Paracha demands that he be immediately released Xxxxx without further diplomatic negotiation over his Xxxxx and that he be permitted to personally communicate with Xxxxx arrange for security assurances to be given to the United States government. Upon careful consideration of the parties' filings, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in these consolidated cases, the Court will deny petitioner's motion.
This Court has recently denied two of Mr. Paracha's motions for preliminary injunction and therefore will only summarize the applicable legal standard. See Paracha v. Biden, Civil Action Nos. 04-2022, 21-2567, 2022 WL 621400, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2022); May 13, 2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Civil Action No. 21-2567 [Dkt. No. 37] ¶ 3. A movant seeking preliminary relief must make a “clear showing that four factors, taken together, warrant relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm in tire absence of preliminary relief, a balance of the equities in its favor, and accord with the public interest.” Archdiocese of Washington v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 897 F-'d314, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016)). “[A] failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits alone is sufficient to defeat a preliminary injunction motion.” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs 205 F.Supp.3d 4, 26 (D.D.C. 2016); see also M.G.U. v. Nielsen, 325 F.Supp.3d 111, 117 (D.D.C. 2018).
Mr. Paracha cannot show a likelihood of success on tire merits of his third motion for preliminary injunction because his claims are barred by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the “MCA”), Pub. L. No. 109-366, § 7(a), 120 Stat. 2600, 2635-36 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)). As previously explained, the MCA deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider claims brought by Guantanamo detainees that “do not sound in habeas.” Aamer v. Obama. 742 F.3d 1023, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing AI-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315, 319 (D.C. Cir. 2012)); see Paracha v. Biden. 2022 WL 621400. at *2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2)); Paracha v. Obama, 194 F.Supp.3d 7, 11 (D.D.C, 2016). And a prisoner's claims “sound [] in habeas” if they challenge either “the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment” or “the conditions of his confinement.” Aamer v; Obama, 742 F.3d at 1032 (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)).
Mr. Paracha's claims do neither; First, Mr. Paracha argues that the United States is improperly engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Xxxxx regarding his Xxxxx Second, he argues that he should be permitted to transport himself to a Western Union location outside of the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to pickup a money transfer from his family and then to a Cuban airport, where he would embark on a flight Xxxxx Third, suspecting that his continued detention is due to the United States' demand that Xxxxx provide security assurances before Xxxxx seeExec. Order No. 13,567, § 4(b), 76 Fed. Reg, 13,277, 13.279 (Mar. 7, 2011), Mr. Paracha argues that he should be permitted to communicate with Xxxxx to personally demand Xxxxx and to indicate his willingness to accept conditions that would permit Xxxxx to make such assurances. Putting aside the merits of these claims, it is clear drat none of them “actually challenge the legality of his confinement, nor any aspect of the place or conditions of his confinement.” Paracha v. Obama. 194 F.Supp.3d at 11. The claims therefore arc barred by the MCA because they “do not sound in habeas.” Paracha v. Biden, 2022 WL 621400, at *2 (quoting Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d at 1030).
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Paracha's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Preliminary Injunction for Departure at His Expense, and Opportunity to Consent to Security Assurances, see-Notice of Protected Filing [Dkt. No. 38], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.