Bin Amin v. Obama

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-0923
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOHD FARIK BIN AMIN, Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 11-923 (CKK)

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Respondents.

ORDER (May 9, 2025)

Petitioner Mohd Farik Bin Amin filed a Petition for Wit of Habeas Corpus in 2011 seeking

release from detention at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Pet., ECF No. 1.

In December 2024, Respondents notified the Court that the United States had “transferred [Mr.

Bin Amin] to the custody and control of the Government of Malaysia.” Notice, ECF No. 84. In

response, the Court ordered the parties to file a status report stating their positions on whether Mr.

Bin Amin’s transfer mooted the Petition and required dismissal. See Min. Order (Dec. 23, 2024).

Initially, the parties did not agree. Mr. Bin Amin asserted that he was “still under US

custodial control” in Malaysia and requested a continuance because the “terms of detention [were]

in dispute.” Joint Status Report, ECF No. 85 at 1. Respondents contended that Mr. Bin Amin’s

“transfer to Malaysia renders this case moot” but did not oppose Mr. Bin Amin’s request for a

continuance. Id. at 1–2. Accordingly, the Court extended the stay in this matter for an additional

120 days and ordered the parties to file another status report. Min. Order (Jan. 13, 2025).

The parties have now filed a status report in response to that order. See Joint Status Report,

ECF No. 86. Therein, the parties jointly state that Mr. Bin Amin’s “transfer to Malaysia renders

this case moot, and therefore the case should be dismissed without prejudice.” Id.

1 That statement comes to the Court as a Joint Status Report. But it is, in effect, a stipulation

of voluntary dismissal signed by all parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), 81(a)(4). Alternatively, the

Court accepts the parties’ joint agreement that the Petition is now moot under relevant law. See

Gul v. Obama, 652 F.3d 12, 16–22 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Mootness deprives the Court of subject-

matter jurisdiction. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). And lacking

subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court may dismiss the action sua sponte. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

ORDERS that this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice; and further

ORDERS that any pending deadlines in this matter are VACATED.

SO ORDERED.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

DATED: May 9, 2025.

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge