David Lahamendu v. Pamela Bondi et al.

W.D. Washington

David Lahamendu v. Pamela Bondi et al.

DecidedOctober 31, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02155

StatusUnknown

This text of David Lahamendu v. Pamela Bondi et al. (David Lahamendu v. Pamela Bondi 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

David Lahamendu v. Pamela Bondi et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DAVID LAHAMENDU, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02155 11 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 12 v. MEET AND CONFER AND GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF 13 PAMELA BONDI et al., PENDING RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S 14 Respondents. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO. 15 2)

16 Petitioner David Lahamendu filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release 17 from confinement. (Dkt. No. 1.) Lahamendu also moves for a temporary restraining order 18 (“TRO”) preventing his transfer to a detention facility outside of this District while these 19 proceedings are pending. (Dkt. No. 2.) 20 The Petition and the motion assert Lahamendu was granted voluntary departure in 21 November 2004 and that his removal proceedings were closed on December 20, 2004. 22 Lahamendu further asserts he was placed on an order of supervision on March 21, 2019 and that, 23 despite such order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained him on January 26, 24 1 2025. Lahamendu indicates he has been detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 2 (“NWIPC”) located in Tacoma, Washington since January 26, 2025. He argues he has been 3 detained for more than six months and that his continued detention is unlawful. Counsel asserts 4 Lahamendu has been informed he will be transferred from NWIPC to a different facility outside 5 of this District, which will limit his ability to pursue his petition.

6 Lahamendu has not yet served the petition on Respondents as the petition and motion for 7 TRO were filed shortly after 12:00 a.m. on Friday, October 31, 2025. Lahamendu notes that a 8 copy of the petition and the motion would normally be sent electronically upon filing via the 9 CM/ECF system to the designated Department of Justice habeas petition email: 10 usawaw.Habeas@usdoj.gov. Respondents have not entered an appearance nor responded to 11 Lahamendu’s motion. 12 The Court may grant a TRO to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status 13 quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 14 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over

15 the matter.”). 16 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 17 1. Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is provisionally 18 GRANTED pending Respondents’ response to the motion. This grant is solely 19 for the purpose of maintaining the status quo so that the Court may review the 20 merits of the motion after full briefing. 21 2. Respondents ARE PROHIBITED from removing Petitioner from the United 22 States or this jurisdiction—i.e., the Western District of Washington—without 23 further order. 24 1 3. Petitioner’s counsel SHALL immediately serve process and a copy of this Order 2 on Respondents. Petitioner’s counsel SHALL immediately contact Respondents’ 3 counsel to provide a copy of this Order and to meet and confer on (1) a briefing 4 schedule for the motion for TRO and (2) whether the government will agree to a 5 stipulated order to not remove Petitioner from the United States and to not 6 transfer Petitioner to another facility during the pendency of this action. 7 4. Ifthe Parties can agree on a briefing schedule, they SHALL file a stipulated 8 proposed briefing schedule with the Court, along with any other stipulations the 9 Parties may agree on for the pendency of this case. If the Parties cannot reach 10 agreement on a briefing schedule, then Respondents SHALL respond to the 11 motion for TRO on the schedule set by Local Civil Rule 65 once service is 12 accomplished. 13 5. The Parties SHALL contact the courtroom deputy by email if they wish to 14 schedule oral argument on the motion for TRO. 15 16 Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.

18 Ht + David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER AND GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF PENDING RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

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

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DAVID LAHAMENDU, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02155 11 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 12 v. MEET AND CONFER AND GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF 13 PAMELA BONDI et al., PENDING RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S 14 Respondents. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO. 15 2)

16 Petitioner David Lahamendu filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release 17 from confinement. (Dkt. No. 1.) Lahamendu also moves for a temporary restraining order 18 (“TRO”) preventing his transfer to a detention facility outside of this District while these 19 proceedings are pending. (Dkt. No. 2.) 20 The Petition and the motion assert Lahamendu was granted voluntary departure in 21 November 2004 and that his removal proceedings were closed on December 20, 2004. 22 Lahamendu further asserts he was placed on an order of supervision on March 21, 2019 and that, 23 despite such order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained him on January 26, 24 1 2025. Lahamendu indicates he has been detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 2 (“NWIPC”) located in Tacoma, Washington since January 26, 2025. He argues he has been 3 detained for more than six months and that his continued detention is unlawful. Counsel asserts 4 Lahamendu has been informed he will be transferred from NWIPC to a different facility outside 5 of this District, which will limit his ability to pursue his petition.

6 Lahamendu has not yet served the petition on Respondents as the petition and motion for 7 TRO were filed shortly after 12:00 a.m. on Friday, October 31, 2025. Lahamendu notes that a 8 copy of the petition and the motion would normally be sent electronically upon filing via the 9 CM/ECF system to the designated Department of Justice habeas petition email: 10 usawaw.Habeas@usdoj.gov. Respondents have not entered an appearance nor responded to 11 Lahamendu’s motion. 12 The Court may grant a TRO to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status 13 quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 14 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over

15 the matter.”). 16 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 17 1. Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is provisionally 18 GRANTED pending Respondents’ response to the motion. This grant is solely 19 for the purpose of maintaining the status quo so that the Court may review the 20 merits of the motion after full briefing. 21 2. Respondents ARE PROHIBITED from removing Petitioner from the United 22 States or this jurisdiction—i.e., the Western District of Washington—without 23 further order. 24 1 3. Petitioner’s counsel SHALL immediately serve process and a copy of this Order 2 on Respondents. Petitioner’s counsel SHALL immediately contact Respondents’ 3 counsel to provide a copy of this Order and to meet and confer on (1) a briefing 4 schedule for the motion for TRO and (2) whether the government will agree to a 5 stipulated order to not remove Petitioner from the United States and to not 6 transfer Petitioner to another facility during the pendency of this action. 7 4. Ifthe Parties can agree on a briefing schedule, they SHALL file a stipulated 8 proposed briefing schedule with the Court, along with any other stipulations the 9 Parties may agree on for the pendency of this case. If the Parties cannot reach 10 agreement on a briefing schedule, then Respondents SHALL respond to the 11 motion for TRO on the schedule set by Local Civil Rule 65 once service is 12 accomplished. 13 5. The Parties SHALL contact the courtroom deputy by email if they wish to 14 schedule oral argument on the motion for TRO. 15 16 Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.

18 Ht + David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER AND GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF PENDING RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David Lahamendu v. Pamela Bondi et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-lahamendu-v-pamela-bondi-et-al-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack