Atkinson v. Department of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00484
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KAYANN DWAYNE ATKINSON, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00484-JHC-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER ADDING PROPER 12 RESPONDENT, DIRECTING DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SERVICE AND ANSWER, § 2241 13 SECURITY, PETITION 14 Respondent.

15 Petitioner Kayann Dwayne Atkinson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas 16 Petition and paid the required filing fee. Dkt. 1. Having reviewed the Petition, the Court 17 ORDERS the following: 18 (1) Proper Respondent 19 Petitioner has only named Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) as Respondent 20 for this action. However, the proper respondent for § 2241 petitions is “the person who has 21 custody over [the petitioner],” not simply the agency employing that individual. See Rumsfeld v. 22 Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243); Doe v. Garland, 109 23 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024) (reversing grant of federal habeas relief where the immigration 24 detainee’s direct custodian was not named as respondent). Petitioner represents that he is 1 currently detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center, so the proper respondent for this 2 action is the individual in charge of that facility. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to 3 ADD the Facility Administrator of the Northwest ICE Processing Center as a Respondent in this 4 action.

5 (2) Service 6 If not previously accomplished, electronic posting of this Order and Petitioner’s § 2241 7 habeas Petition shall effect service upon the United States Attorney of the Petition and all 8 supporting documents. Service upon the United States Attorney is deemed to be service upon the 9 Respondents. 10 (3) Return 11 Within 30 days of the date this Order is posted, Respondents shall show cause why a 12 writ of habeas corpus should not be granted by filing a return as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 13 As a part of such return, Respondents shall submit a memorandum of authorities in support of 14 their position and should state whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

15 Respondents shall file the return with the Clerk of the Court and shall serve a copy upon 16 Petitioner. The return will be treated in accordance with LCR 7. Accordingly, on the face of the 17 Return, Respondents shall note it for consideration on the first business day occurring 28 days 18 after it is filed, and the Clerk shall note the Return accordingly. Petitioner may file and serve a 19 response not later than 21 days after the Return is filed and served, and Respondents may file and 20 serve a reply brief not later than the business day designated for consideration of the matter. 21 (4) Change in Custody Status 22 If Petitioner’s custody status changes at any point during this litigation, Respondents 23 shall file a status update with the Court as soon as possible and no later than 14 days after

24 the change. 1 Finally, the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Petitioner and 2 to the Honorable John H. Chun. 3 4 Dated this 27th day of March, 2025.

5 A 6 7 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24