Castillo Arrendondo v. Lyons

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ANDRES CASTILLO ARRENDONDO, Case No. 2:25-cv-01838-TMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 9 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE v. 10 TODD LYONS, et al, 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 On September 23, 2025, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus. Dkt. 1. The Court issues an order to show cause and expedited briefing schedule for the 16 reasons that follow. 17 1. The Court retains discretion to determine when an answer or response to a section 18 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Sect. 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may 19 apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by [28 U.S.C. § 20 2254].”); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to 21 Habeas Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to fix a time to file an answer beyond 22 the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Even when following 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2243, the Court may allow up to twenty days for the return with good cause. 28 24 1 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause . . . shall be returned within three 2 days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.”). 3 2. In the exercise of its discretion to fix the response deadline, the Court is mindful that

4 Congress has clearly indicated that habeas petitioners are entitled to a prompt ruling. 5 A court considering a habeas application must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 6 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 7 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added); see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963) (habeas 8 is meant to provide a “swift and imperative remedy”); In re Habeas Corpus Cases, 9 216 F.R.D. at 53 (“Undue delay in the disposition of habeas corpus cases is 10 unacceptable.”) 11 3. Thus, the Court examines the allegations and circumstances of each case in 12 determining the due date of a response. In examining the allegations here, the Court

13 finds there is a basis to expedite this matter. Petitioner alleges that despite residing in 14 the United States for years before his arrest, he is unlawfully subject to mandatory 15 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, a policy recently adopted by the Department of 16 Homeland Security (“DHS”). Dkt. 1 at 6. Whether Petitioners are lawfully detained 17 under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 presents the same legal question that this Court recently 18 answered in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, et al., 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 19 2782499 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025). The Court granted summary judgment to 20 members of a certified Bond Denial Class, declaring that “the Tacoma Immigration 21 Court’s practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of § 22 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Id. at *27. Because

23 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus based on the same legal question, the case 24 appears unlikely to require detailed fact development. See Dkt. 1 at 6. The Court l notes, however, that Petitioner also alleges two constitutional violations, including a 2 distinct Fourth Amendment claim that Petitioner was “illegally arrested based on his 3 ethnicity and the job that he was doing.” /d. 4 4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 a. Respondents shall file a response to the habeas petition no later than October 6 16, 2025. Any arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall be made 7 in the response and not by separate motion. 8 b. Any reply Petitioner wishes to file shall be due by October 21, 2025. The 9 Clerk shall note the matter for October 21, 2025. 10 c. The clerk is directed to effectuate immediate service of the habeas petition 11 filed in this case upon Respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this 12 order to usawaw. Habeas@usdo].gov. 13 14 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2025. Lag 16 TiffanyMI. Cartwright United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24