Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz

W.D. Washington

Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz

DecidedNovember 10, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02176

StatusUnknown

This text of Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz (Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz) 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

Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DEMAR S. RHOME, CASE NO. 2:25-CV-2176-BJR-DWC 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE 12 EDDIE REETZ, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Petitioner Demar Rhome, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a proposed 16 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkts. 1, 4, 6. “28 U.S.C. § 2254 17 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state 18 court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court 19 conviction.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other 20 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Petitioner is currently 21 confined pursuant to a 2006 King County Superior Court judgment and sentence. See Dkt. 6 at 2. 22 Because Petitioner submitted a petition pursuant to § 2241, and not § 2254, the Court declines to 23 serve the petition or to direct Respondent to file an answer. However, Petitioner is granted leave 24 1 to correct this deficiency by submitting an amended petition pursuant to § 2254. The amended 2 petition should be filed on the forms provided by the Clerk. 3 The Court also notes Petitioner has already challenged this conviction in this Court and 4 any additional challenge may be successive. See Rhome v. Fraker, 2:09-cv-85-RSL (W.D.

5 Wash.). As such, Petitioner must also show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as 6 successive. 7 In sum, Petitioner must file an amended petition, showing cause, on or before December 8 12, 2025. Failure to file an amended petition or otherwise respond to this Order by December 12, 9 2025, may result in the undersigned recommending the petition be dismissed without prejudice. 10 Petitioner’s Motion to Transfer to Another Facility or Release (Dkt. 7) and his Proposed 11 Motion to Vacate (Dkt. 4-1) are stricken because Petitioner has not provided a viable petition. 12 The Clerk’s Office is directed provide Petitioner with a copy of this Order and Court’s 13 standard 28 U.S.C. § 2254 forms. 14 Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.

15 A 16 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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 TACOMA 9 10 DEMAR S. RHOME, CASE NO. 2:25-CV-2176-BJR-DWC 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE 12 EDDIE REETZ, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Petitioner Demar Rhome, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a proposed 16 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkts. 1, 4, 6. “28 U.S.C. § 2254 17 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state 18 court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court 19 conviction.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other 20 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Petitioner is currently 21 confined pursuant to a 2006 King County Superior Court judgment and sentence. See Dkt. 6 at 2. 22 Because Petitioner submitted a petition pursuant to § 2241, and not § 2254, the Court declines to 23 serve the petition or to direct Respondent to file an answer. However, Petitioner is granted leave 24 1 to correct this deficiency by submitting an amended petition pursuant to § 2254. The amended 2 petition should be filed on the forms provided by the Clerk. 3 The Court also notes Petitioner has already challenged this conviction in this Court and 4 any additional challenge may be successive. See Rhome v. Fraker, 2:09-cv-85-RSL (W.D.

5 Wash.). As such, Petitioner must also show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as 6 successive. 7 In sum, Petitioner must file an amended petition, showing cause, on or before December 8 12, 2025. Failure to file an amended petition or otherwise respond to this Order by December 12, 9 2025, may result in the undersigned recommending the petition be dismissed without prejudice. 10 Petitioner’s Motion to Transfer to Another Facility or Release (Dkt. 7) and his Proposed 11 Motion to Vacate (Dkt. 4-1) are stricken because Petitioner has not provided a viable petition. 12 The Clerk’s Office is directed provide Petitioner with a copy of this Order and Court’s 13 standard 28 U.S.C. § 2254 forms. 14 Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.

15 A 16 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demar-s-rhome-v-eddie-reetz-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack