## Facts

- Shawali Khan, an Afghan citizen, was detained by the United States beginning in November 2002 and held at Guantánamo Bay from early 2003.
- Khan filed a habeas petition challenging detention authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), asserting he was not part of, and did not substantially support, enemy forces.
- In 2010, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied habeas relief, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Khan was detainable for being part of or substantially supporting Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), described as associated with Taliban and al-Qaeda forces.
- The government’s 2010 showing relied largely on three informants and physical items recovered in searches of Khan’s home and shop.
- Informant accounts linked Khan to an HIG cell led by his uncle, described the cell’s use of radio-triggered explosives against U.S. personnel, and identified Khan as facilitating radio communications and using his shop as a meeting/contact point.
- Searches recovered Arabic-language materials relating to terrorist activity, a book authored by an al-Qaeda leader, and a classified item that an informant had independently described; the court treated the recovered classified item as corroboration of informant knowledge.
- After the 2010 judgment, the government decided it would no longer rely on any of Khan’s own statements to justify detention.
- Khan moved for post-judgment relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing the government’s change and additional challenges to informant reliability and physical evidence warranted reopening the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether post-judgment developments—especially the government’s decision not to rely on Khan’s statements—constituted grounds for relief from the 2010 habeas judgment under Rule 60(b).
2. Whether Khan established “extraordinary circumstances” or genuinely new evidence sufficient under Rule 60(b) to reopen the prior detainability finding under the AUMF.
3. Whether renewed attacks on informant credibility and the interpretation of seized materials justified vacating or modifying the final judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied Khan’s Rule 60(b) motion and left the 2010 denial of habeas relief intact.
- The court held the government’s nonreliance on Khan’s statements did not undermine the 2010 judgment because independent evidence supported detainability.
- The court concluded Khan’s submissions did not present new evidence or extraordinary circumstances; they largely reargued evidentiary weight and credibility already assessed.
- The court reaffirmed that, on the total record and by a preponderance of the evidence, Khan was lawfully detained under the AUMF framework applied in the 2010 decision.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b) relief from a final judgment is exceptional; Rule 60(b)(6) requires “extraordinary circumstances” and is not a vehicle for re-litigation.
- A post-judgment change in a party’s litigation position warrants reopening only if it materially undermines the judgment’s essential evidentiary basis.
- In Guantánamo habeas cases, AUMF detainability may be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee was “part of” or “substantially supported” Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces engaged in hostilities.
- Credibility assessments and inferential findings made on the original record are not reopened under Rule 60(b) absent materially new, previously unavailable evidence or a change in controlling law.
- Corroborated informant reporting and physical evidence may provide an independent basis for an AUMF detainability finding.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to reopen its prior habeas judgment, holding that the government’s decision not to rely on the detainee’s statements and Khan’s renewed challenges to informants and seized materials did not satisfy Rule 60(b)’s demanding standards, and that independent evidence continued to support lawful detention under the AUMF.


Shawali Khan v. Obama, No. 08-1101 (JDB), 2014 WL 4843907 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2014)