Enrique Diaz De Armas v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 ENRIQUE DIAZ DE ARMAS, Case No. 2:25-cv-02250-RSL-TLF Petitioner, V. ORDER GRANTING 8 PETITIONER’S ORDER TO SHOW KRISTI NOEM, ET AL, CAUSE, SETTING BRIEFING 9 SCHEDULE AND GIVING NOTICE 40 Respondents. OF RIGHT TO CONSENT

11 Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 1. 12 1. The Court retains the discretion to determine when an answer or response to a 13 || § 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 14 || (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to 15 || fix a time to file an answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A 16 || court considering a habeas corpus petition must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 17 || order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added). The Court examines the allegations and 19 || circumstances of each case in determining the due date of a response. 20 2. As to the claims asserted here, the Court finds there is a basis for ordering 21 || respondents to file the record, and for the parties to submit their briefs on an expedited 22 schedule. 23 24 25 || ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S ORDER TO

1 Petitioner states he entered the United States on November 1, 2023 via a parole 2 || entry program created by the Department of Homeland Security under 8 U.S.C. § 3 || 1182(d)(5), specifically the Cuban Haitian Nicaraguan Venezuelan program. Dkt. 1 at 4 || 1,3. He asserts that he entered through Miami, Florida and was subsequently issued an 5 |} 1-94, indicating a Cuban Humanitarian Parole entry through the program. /d. at 4. 6 || Pending an application to adjust his status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, 7 || petitioner states his period of parole expired on June 12, 2025. /d. He alleges that on 8 || November 1, 2025, while driving in Portland, Petitioner and his cousin were intercepted 9 |} and then detained by Immigration and Customers Enforcement (“ICE”). /d. at 5. 10 Petitioner states he is currently in ICE custody. /d. On November 3, 2025, 11 || Petitioner was charged as being removable. /d. On November 9, 2025, Petitioner was to 12 moved to an immigration detention facility in Louisiana, but allegedly was not flown 13 || to Louisiana because the plane he was to board had reached its capacity. /d. at 12. 14 || Petitioner argues his constitutional right to due process has been violated and seeks 15 the Court a writ of habeas corpus immediately releasing him from custody, and an 16 || order prohibiting Respondent from transferring Petitioner from the district without the 17 || Court’s approval. /d. at 13. 18 Petitioner also requests an Order to Show Cause from the Court directing 19 |} Respondents to show cause within three days why the writ of habeas corpus should not 20 || be granted. Dkt. 1. In light of petitioner's due process concerns, and the fact that 21 || habeas petitioners are entitled to a prompt ruling, the Court concludes that expedited 22 || briefing is merited. 23 24 29 || ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S ORDERTO

1 4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Petitioner’s request for an Order to Show 2 || Cause is granted. Respondents shall file the relevant records and a response to the 3 habeas corpus petition by November 17, 2025. Any reply Petitioner wishes to file shall 4 || be due on November 19, 2025, and the Clerk shall note the matter for November 19, 5 ||2025, as ready for the Court’s consideration. 6 To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter 7 ||jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may issue 8 || an order to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 9 || 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing 10 || conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” unless the 11 || assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is necessary 12 || to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the case. 13 || United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). 14 Accordingly, to allow Petitioner time to move for emergency relief in the event he 15 to be transferred or removed before this Court reviews his Petition, the Court 16 || ORDERS that Respondents must provide this Court, Petitioner, and Petitioner's counsel 17 this habeas corpus action, at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period 18 || extends into the weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer him from the 19 || Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or to remove him 20 || from the United States. 21 5. The Clerk is directed to serve the habeas petition, Dkt. 1, upon Respondents 22 || and shall immediately email a copy of this order to usawaw.habeas@usdoj.gov. 23 24 29 || ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S ORDERTO

1 6. The parties have a right to have the matter heard by a United States District 2 || Judge and may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 3 || U.S.C. § 636 (c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). Consent is voluntary. Washington v. Kijakazi, 4 || 72 F.4th 1029, 1036-1040 (9th Cir. 2023). The Magistrate Judge will have jurisdiction 5 |} only if all parties consent. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-504 (9th Cir. 2017). 6 Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline 7 || consent by no later than November 17, 2025, by emailing Deputy Gayle Riekena at 8 gayle riekena@wawd.uscourts.gov. 9 If the parties unanimously consent, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will 10 || preside over the entire case through judgment. If any party does not consent to the 11 || jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, the case will remain assigned to District Judge 12 || Robert S. Lasnik. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 73. See a/so 13 || General Order 5-25. 14 15 Dated this 14th day of November, 2025. 16 17 □ Htilen Ko roche. Theresa L. Fricke 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 29 || ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S ORDERTO