Daoud Mehrabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 || DAOUD MEHRABI, Case No. 2:25-cv-02227-DGE-TLF Petitioner, V. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 8 SCHEDULE AND GIVING NOTICE 9 PAMELA BONDI, ET AL, OF RIGHT TO CONSENT Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner, by counsel, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 12 || Dkt. 6. 13 1. The Court retains the discretion to determine when an answer or response to a 14 || § 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 15 Cir. 1985) (pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to 16 || fix a time to file an answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A 17 || court considering a habeas corpus petition must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 18 || order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added). The Court examines the allegations and 20 || circumstances of each case in determining the due date of a response. 21 2. As to the claims asserted here, the Court finds there is a basis for an 22 || expedited briefing schedule. 23 24 25

1 Petitioner states he entered the United States on December 19, 2024, was 2 || detained by Immigration and Customers Enforcement (“ICE”), for one month and 3 || subsequently released on or about January 21, 2025. Dkt. 6 at 2. On February 5, 2025, 4 || petitioner alleges, he was again detained and remains in ICE custody at the Immigration 5 || Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. /d. On April 16, 2025, an immigration judge 6 issued a final deportation order. /d. 7 Petitioner argues his constitutional right to due process has been violated. /d. 8 || Petitioner asks the Court to order his immediate release from custody and to issue an 9 || order that respondents may not remove or seek to remove Petitioner to a third country 10 || (other than France) without reopening removal proceedings. /d. at 18. 11 Although there is some complexity of legal issues, the Court is concerned with 12 || the need for prompt determination of the appropriate due process analysis and habeas 13 || corpus process. The Court concludes that expedited briefing is merited. 14 4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Respondents shall file a response to the 15 || habeas petition by November 19, 2025. Any reply petitioner wishes to file shall be due 16 ||on November 21, 2025, and the Clerk shall note the matter for November 21, 2025, as 17 || ready for the Court’s consideration. 18 5. The Clerk is directed to serve the habeas corpus petition, Dkt. 6, upon 19 respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this order to 20 || usawaw.habeas@usdoj.gov. 21 6. The parties have a right to have the matter heard by a United States District 22 || Judge and may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 23 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). Consent is voluntary. Washington v. Kijakazi, 24 25

1 || 72 F.4t8 1029, 1036-1040 (9th Cir. 2023). The Magistrate Judge will have jurisdiction 2 || only if all parties consent. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-504 (9" Cir. 2017). 3 Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline 4 consent by no later than November 17, 2025, by emailing Deputy Gayle Riekena at 5 |jgayle riekena@wawd.uscourts.gov. 6 If the parties unanimously consent, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will 7 || preside over the entire case through judgment. If any party does not consent to the 8 || jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, the case will remain assigned to Chief District 9 || Judge David G. Estudillo. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 73. See 10 || also General Order 5-25. 11 12 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. 13 14 « Hailes K Freche Theresa L. Fricke 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25