Denis Alfredo Velasquez O v. ICE Field Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01403
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 DENIS ALFREDO VELASQUEZ O, Case No. 26-cv-01403-TMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 ENFORCE JUDGMENT v. 10 ICE FIELD OFFICE, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13

14 Petitioner Denis Alfredo Velasquez O has been detained at the Northwest Immigration 15 and Customs Enforcement Processing Center since March 18, 2026. Dkt. 8 ¶ 5. On May 19, 16 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Respondents 17 to “release him or provide him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” within 14 days of 18 receiving his request for such a hearing. Dkt. 13 at 4. It is unclear from the record when the bond 19 hearing was held before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) but the fact that it was held is apparent 20 from the motion to enforce the judgment filed by Petitioner on June 24. Dkt. 16. 21 In the motion, Petitioner asserts that the bond hearing that was held pursuant to this 22 Court’s Order violated his procedural due process rights and that the IJ’s decision denying bond 23 was an abuse of discretion. Dkt. 16 at 1. Petitioner asks the Court to address these issues through 24 l this motion to enforce the judgment. But this motion is not the proper means to raise these new 2 claims. Instead, they must be brought in another habeas petition. 3 When a party fails to comply with a judgment requiring the performance of a “specific 4 act,” a district court may enforce the judgment by “order[ing] the act to be done . . . by another 5 person appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a); Rose v. Guyer, 961 F.3d 1238, 1245 (9th 6 Cir. 2020). Rule 70(a) “authorizes a district court to enforce its judgment ‘only when a party 7 ||refuses to comply with [the] judgment.’” Rose, 961 F.3d at 1245 (alteration in original) (quoting || McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1987)). 9 Respondents have already complied with the sole remedy ordered by the Court on May 10 19: “a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Any claims regarding the constitutional 11 sufficiency of that hearing or the substance of the IJ’s decision—essentially, new grounds for 12 relief—should instead be raised in a new habeas petition. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 13 779-80 (9th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, the motion to enforce the judgment (Dkt. 16) is DENIED. 14 15 Dated this 25" day of June, 2026.

17 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24