Ashemuke v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE

6 EMMANUEL ASHEMUKE,

7 Petitioner, Case No. C23-1592-RSL

8 v. 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, RECONSIDERATION 10 Respondent. 11

12 This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s pro se “Motion to Reconsider 13 Motion to Enforce.” Dkt. # 64. Pursuant to LCR 83.2(b)(5), a party who is represented by 14 an attorney of record in a case cannot act on his own behalf and must rely on the attorney 15 16 unless he requests by motion to proceed pro se and the Court terminates the 17 representation. Although petitioner’s pro se filing violates the rules of this district, the 18 Court has nevertheless considered whether reconsideration is appropriate under LCR 19 7(h). It is not. Petitioner has not shown either manifest error in the prior ruling or new 20 21 22 23

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 1 facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention before 2 the prior ruling issued.1 3 4 For all of the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to for reconsideration 5 DENIED. 6

7 Dated this 25th day of October, 2024. 8 9 Robert S. Lasnik 10 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 1 Petitioner relies on Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), for a number of propositions, including the argument that a finding of dangerousness cannot stand in the absence of other special circumstances, such as mental illness 21 that helps create the danger. See Dkt. # 64 at 3. The Court is very familiar with Zadvydas because it upheld what the undersigned did in one of the companion cases, Kim Ho Ma v. I.N.S., 56 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1166 (W.D. Wash. 1999). Those cases involved indefinite detention, where the apparatus for accomplishing deportation did not exist. 22 Because there is no fixed or structural impediment to deportation here, the “special circumstances” language does not apply and a finding of continuing dangerousness can justify a lengthy detention. 23

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2