Angel Romulo Del Valle Castillo, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

W.D. Washington

Angel Romulo Del Valle Castillo, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

DecidedOctober 30, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02054

StatusUnknown

This text of Angel Romulo Del Valle Castillo, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al. (Angel Romulo Del Valle Castillo, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angel Romulo Del Valle Castillo, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ANGEL ROMULO DEL VALLE Case No. 2:25-cv-02054-TMC 8 CASTILLO, et al., EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 9 ORDER Petitioner, 10 v. 11 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., 12 Respondent. 13

14 I. ORDER 15 The Court intends to hold a hearing as soon as possible on Petitioners’ motion for 16 temporary restraining order (Dkt. 10), including their request that Respondents be ordered to 17 return Petitioner Hector Ramirez Garcia to this district. The Court finds that Petitioners have 18 established a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying habeas petition and have 19 shown at least some likelihood of irreparable harm from denial of access to counsel if they are 20 transferred from this district during the pendency of their habeas petitions. See Dkt. 11–13. 21 To preserve the status quo and prevent immediate harm before the parties can be heard on 22 this motion, the Court ORDERS that Respondents (and their officers, employees, agents, or 23 others working on their behalf) are temporarily PROHIBITED from transferring any of the 24 l Petitioners from this district pending further order of this Court. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. 2 Ct. 1364, 1369 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent 3 irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); see also 4 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. Of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda 5 Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (ex parte TROs serve a limited purpose of “preserving the status 6 quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 7 longer”). This ex parte Order will remain in place until the Court issues a full ruling on the TRO 8 motion after a hearing. The parties are directed to contact the courtroom deputy by email 9 tomorrow, October 31, 2025, to schedule a hearing. 10 11 Dated this 30th day of October, 2025. 2 hag OS 13 Tiffany-WI. Cartwright United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ANGEL ROMULO DEL VALLE Case No. 2:25-cv-02054-TMC 8 CASTILLO, et al., EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 9 ORDER Petitioner, 10 v. 11 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., 12 Respondent. 13

14 I. ORDER 15 The Court intends to hold a hearing as soon as possible on Petitioners’ motion for 16 temporary restraining order (Dkt. 10), including their request that Respondents be ordered to 17 return Petitioner Hector Ramirez Garcia to this district. The Court finds that Petitioners have 18 established a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying habeas petition and have 19 shown at least some likelihood of irreparable harm from denial of access to counsel if they are 20 transferred from this district during the pendency of their habeas petitions. See Dkt. 11–13. 21 To preserve the status quo and prevent immediate harm before the parties can be heard on 22 this motion, the Court ORDERS that Respondents (and their officers, employees, agents, or 23 others working on their behalf) are temporarily PROHIBITED from transferring any of the 24 l Petitioners from this district pending further order of this Court. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. 2 Ct. 1364, 1369 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent 3 irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); see also 4 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. Of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda 5 Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (ex parte TROs serve a limited purpose of “preserving the status 6 quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 7 longer”). This ex parte Order will remain in place until the Court issues a full ruling on the TRO 8 motion after a hearing. The parties are directed to contact the courtroom deputy by email 9 tomorrow, October 31, 2025, to schedule a hearing. 10 11 Dated this 30th day of October, 2025. 2 hag OS 13 Tiffany-WI. Cartwright United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Angel Romulo Del Valle Castillo, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angel-romulo-del-valle-castillo-et-al-v-cammilla-wamsley-et-al-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack