Aden Hussen Hassan v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02444
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ADEN HUSSEN HASSAN, CASE NO. C25-2444-KKE 8

Petitioner(s), ORDER DIRECTING MEET AND 9 v. CONFER AND JOINT STATUS REPORT

10 PAMELA BONDI, et al.,

11 Respondent(s).

12 On February 10, 2026, the Court held a status conference in which the parties discussed 13 the potential need for an evidentiary hearing and exchange of records. The parties indicated that 14 they intend to inform the Court if they anticipate a need for an evidentiary hearing following the 15 conclusion of briefing on Petitioner’s amended habeas petition. With respect to exchanging 16 records, Petitioner’s counsel requested that Respondents produce certain records pertaining to 17 Petitioner’s medical care and Respondents’ travel arrangements and communications with the 18 government of Somalia. While objecting to the propriety of discovery in a habeas case as a general 19 matter, counsel for Respondents agreed to assist in expediting the informal production of relevant 20 documents to Petitioner’s counsel if ordered to do so. The Court therefore issues such an order 21 now. 22 “The availability of any discovery during a habeas proceeding is committed to the sound 23 discretion of the district court.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1993); see 24 1 also Owino v. Napolitano, 575 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2009) (remanding with instruction to 2 appoint counsel “for the effective utilization of discovery procedures” and “an evidentiary 3 hearing” where disputed facts precluded determining whether petitioner’s detention had become

4 unlawfully indefinite under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (citation omitted)). The Court 5 finds “good cause” to support Petitioner’s request for discovery in this case. See Tillery v. Shartle, 6 778 F. App’x 426, 428 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying “good cause” standard in a § 2241 habeas case). 7 Petitioner’s claims and allegations raise serious concerns about whether his medical condition— 8 end-stage renal disease—would permit Petitioner to safely fly to Somalia; whether Somalia would 9 accept him upon arrival; and, if it would not, whether Petitioner could safely make the return flight 10 to the United States. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and will permit discovery in this case. 11 However, because the parties proposed an informal document exchange and agreed to work 12 together in an effort to promptly resolve Petitioner’s requests, the Court will refrain from ordering

13 the production of specific records at this time. 14 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer about the timing and logistics 15 of the aforementioned exchange of records. The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint status 16 report no later than February 13, 2026, informing the Court of the status of Petitioner’s records 17 requests, whether an altered briefing schedule on the amended petition is appropriate to 18 accommodate the discovery timeline, and whether the parties require Court intervention on any 19 other outstanding issues. 20 Dated this 10th day of February, 2026. 21 A 22 Kymberly K. Evanson 23 United S tates District Judge