Alt+left-arrow to return from a link

 

Full-text: August 12 2002
Deportation/exile of the Chagos Islanders

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

	)
Olivier Bancoult, et al.,	)
Plaintiffs,	)
)
v.	)
)
Robert S. Mcnamara, et al.,	)
Defendants.	)
	)

United States’ Opposition to “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Information ...” {sic: ...}

More than two months after the United States’ Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss and five months after the Plaintiffs’ Reply {withheld by the court clerk from public inspection} in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction were filed, Plaintiffs now seek to supplement their filings with three items: a declaration by the named plaintiff which contains a report by a third person; a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State of the United Kingdom to plaintiffs’ London attorneys 1 ; and an eight page Memorandum of Law, ostensibly submitted in support of the instant motion, which reargues plaintiffs’ position on standing. Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.

Plaintiffs’ submission is nothing more or less than a thinly-veiled attempt to submit a surreply brief in opposition to the United States’ motion to dismiss. {p.2} Submission of a surreply is appropriate only where it is necessary to enable the non-moving party to respond to matters raised for the first time in the moving party’s reply brief. See Lewis v. Rumsfeld {103kb.pdf}, 154 F.Supp.2d 56, 61 (D.D.C. 2001). In the instant case, the United States raised no new issues or arguments in its Reply brief.

Plaintiffs use the present would-be submission to argue the same points they raised in their earlier pleadings — namely that the United States could, if it wished, exercise control over the Chagossians’ access to Diego Garcia through diplomatic suasion. Plaintiffs allege that the United Kingdom has no strategic interest in Diego Garcia and acts only at the behest of the United States. 2  Both parties have already addressed the legal significance of this factual assertion, 3  and untimely additional {p.3} submissions should not be permitted. Indeed, plaintiffs’ proposed submissions simply imply that the Court should recognize United States’ de facto sovereignty over Diego Garcia, an argument that is implicit in all their pleadings. 4 

As a final matter, the United States invites the Court’s attention to a recent decision of this Court, Rasul v. Bush {70kb.pdf}, 2002 WL 1760825, {215} F.Supp.2d {55} (D.D.C. July 30, 2002), regarding the United States’ detention of certain individuals at the United States’ leased Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. {p.4}

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons and based upon the entire record herein, the United States respectfully requests that its motion to dismiss be granted.

 

{p.5}

______________________

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on August 12, 2002, I mailed by first class mail, a true copy of the foregoing United States’ Opposition to “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Information ...” (and sent by telecopier to Michael Tigar) to the following counsel of record:

Michael E. Tigar, Esq.
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Room 460
Washington, D.C. 20016

Harry Reasoner
Vinson & Elkins
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77002-6760

Cynthia T. Andreason
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green & MacRae, LLP
1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009-5728

 

{Signature}

Elaine Marzetta Lacy

Footnotes

 1  The letter states that the Chagossians will not be permitted to visit the island of Diego Garcia in an upcoming, U.K. sponsored visit, because “The US authorities [ ] have confirmed that they cannot agree to it at the present time.” Letter, attached to Pls.’ Instant Memo. Mr. Bancoult’s declaration states (in hearsay) that a Charles Hamilton, an Administrator of the British Indian Ocean Territory, stated that the Chagossians could not visit Diego Garcia because “the U.K. cannot override the agreement; that decision is final, treaty obligations will NOT permit a visit.” Declaration attached to Pls.’ Instant Memo.

 2  See e.g., Complaint ¶ 9 (“the United States leases the Chagos islands and effectively controls all of Diego Garcia.”); Plaintiffs’ Opposition to U.S. Mot. to Dismiss, p.1 (“the United States has effective control over Diego Garcia”); p.22 (“United States has effective control of Diego Garcia”); and p.24, stating:

Id. (Emphasis added.)

 3  See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss at pp.24-25; see also portions of plaintiffs’ prior briefs cited at pp.4-7 of their instant submission; United States’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction at pp.11-13; United States’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at pp.30-32; United States’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 22-24.

 4  If the Court grants the plaintiffs’ request to supplement, the United States should be granted leave to respond.

 

This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

Posted Dec. 9 2002. Updated June 23 2008.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bancoult-d49.html