Gahano v. Renaud

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided August 7, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01094·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Petitioner, Case No. C20-1094-MJP-MLP v. ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL DANIEL M. RENAUD, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner is proceeding pro se in this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action. On July 15, 2020, Petitioner filed an emergency motion seeking a stay of removal. (Dkt. # 2.) The Court denied the motion the following day, explaining that Petitioner had not demonstrated he satisfied any of the factors required to obtain a stay. (Dkt. # 5.) Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s “Replacement Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order For A Stay of Deportation,” which he filed on August 6, 2020. (Dkt. # 7.) The Government has not had an opportunity to respond. In evaluating whether to issue a stay, the Court considers four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). This test is also satisfied where a petitioner shows “that irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a strong likelihood of success on the merits and

that the public interest does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the petitioner’s favor.” Id. at 970. Petitioner’s motion does not address any of the Leiva-Perez factors and simply asks for a stay of removal without any analysis. Because Petitioner fails to establish he satisfies all of the Leiva-Perez factors, the Court DENIES his second motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. # 7). The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson. DATED this __7th____ day of __August__, 2020.

A Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge

Recommended for Entry this 7th of August, 2020.

/s/ Michelle L. Peterson MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge

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

Gahano v. Renaud, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Gahano v. Renaud (Gahano v. Renaud) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nken v. Holder
556 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Leiva-Perez v. Holder
640 F.3d 962 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)