Gia Huy Nguyen v. Field Office Director et al.

W.D. Washington

Gia Huy Nguyen v. Field Office Director et al.

DecidedFebruary 3, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-00394

StatusUnknown

This text of Gia Huy Nguyen v. Field Office Director et al. (Gia Huy Nguyen v. Field Office Director 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

Gia Huy Nguyen v. Field Office Director et al., (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 GIA HUY NGUYEN, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00394-DGE 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. EMERGENCY LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE (DKT. 13 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR et al., NO. 2) AND MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 14 Respondent. (DKT. NO. 4) 15

16 Petitioner proceeds pro se in this instant immigration habeas action. Pending before the 17 Court are motions for permission for Farah Hobballah to appear pro hac vice without association 18 of local counsel and to enter an expedited briefing schedule. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4.) 19 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule (LCR) 83.1(d)(1), an attorney who is a member in good 20 standing of a federal, state, or organized territory bar and who does not reside or maintain an 21 office in the Western District of Washington normally will be permitted to appear on behalf of a 22 party and participate in a case pro hac vice. However, “[t]he party must also be represented by 23 local counsel, who shall fulfill” specific responsibilities, including the responsibility to review, 24 1 sign, and electronically file the applicant’s pro hac vice application and to attest they will handle 2 the matter in the event the applicant is unable to be present to do so. LCR 83.1(d)(1)–(2). Local 3 counsel also, unless waived by the court, bears the responsibility to sign all motions and other 4 filings and ensure all filings comply with the court's local rules. LCR 83.1(d)(2).

5 In asking the Court to waive the local counsel requirement and otherwise deem the pro 6 hac vice requirements satisfied, Hobballah points to Petitioner’s indigency, detention, and 7 limited proficiency with the English language. (Dkt. Nos. 2 at 2–3; 3 at 2.) Hobballah does not 8 identify any authority supporting her request. Instead, she refers to LCR 83.1(d)(1), which at 9 most authorizes waiver of the requirement that local counsel sign motions and other filings. See 10 LCR 83.1(d)(2); see also Burlington N. R. Co. v. Woods Indus., Inc., 815 F. Supp. 1384, 1393 11 (E.D. Wash. 1993) (granting motion to waive requirement for signature of local counsel, but 12 noting counsel appearing pro hac vice “shall continue to consult with local counsel.”). 13 The Court, while sympathetic to the difficulties identified in the pending motions and 14 appreciative of Hobballah’s willingness to provide Petitioner representation, finds no basis for

15 waiving the requirements of LCR 83.1(d). See generally Angel v. Marten, No. C21-7333, 2022 16 WL 18277781, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2022) (noting “[r]easons for requiring local counsel 17 include ‘the importance of knowing the Local Rules, the local standards of behavior or mores in 18 this district, [and] the accessibility of counsel[,]’” and that the court, “like other district courts, 19 enforces the local counsel requirement scrupulously.”) (quoting Daien v. Ysursa, No. C09-0022, 20 2009 WL 10711879, at *3 (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2009)). Therefore, the request to permit counsel to 21 appear pro hac vice without local counsel (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED. The denial of the request to 22 appear pro hac vice is without prejudice to a renewed request compliant with this Court’s rules. 23

24 1 Petitioner also filed a “Motion for Order to Show Cause, to Adopt the Standard 2 Immigration Habeas Scheduling Order, and for Expedited Consideration/Relief.” (Dkt. No. 4.) 3 The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to expedite (Dkt. No. 4) and has instead issued its 4 standard scheduling order (see Dkt. No. 7) for habeas petitions pursuant to General Order 10-25

5 found at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/General Order 10-25 re Immigration 6 Habeas.1.pdf. General Order 10-25 was entered on December 18, 2025 after consultation and 7 cooperation by various stakeholders, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Federal 8 Defender’s Office, and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Petitioner provides and the 9 Court finds no basis to require a different return and traverse schedule than that already 10 identified in the scheduling order. 11 The Clerk is directed to email a copy of this Order to Farah Hobballah at 12 farah@myfarahlawyer.com. 13 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026. 14 A 15 David G. Estudillo 16 United States District 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 GIA HUY NGUYEN, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00394-DGE 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. EMERGENCY LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE (DKT. 13 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR et al., NO. 2) AND MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 14 Respondent. (DKT. NO. 4) 15

16 Petitioner proceeds pro se in this instant immigration habeas action. Pending before the 17 Court are motions for permission for Farah Hobballah to appear pro hac vice without association 18 of local counsel and to enter an expedited briefing schedule. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4.) 19 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule (LCR) 83.1(d)(1), an attorney who is a member in good 20 standing of a federal, state, or organized territory bar and who does not reside or maintain an 21 office in the Western District of Washington normally will be permitted to appear on behalf of a 22 party and participate in a case pro hac vice. However, “[t]he party must also be represented by 23 local counsel, who shall fulfill” specific responsibilities, including the responsibility to review, 24 1 sign, and electronically file the applicant’s pro hac vice application and to attest they will handle 2 the matter in the event the applicant is unable to be present to do so. LCR 83.1(d)(1)–(2). Local 3 counsel also, unless waived by the court, bears the responsibility to sign all motions and other 4 filings and ensure all filings comply with the court's local rules. LCR 83.1(d)(2).

5 In asking the Court to waive the local counsel requirement and otherwise deem the pro 6 hac vice requirements satisfied, Hobballah points to Petitioner’s indigency, detention, and 7 limited proficiency with the English language. (Dkt. Nos. 2 at 2–3; 3 at 2.) Hobballah does not 8 identify any authority supporting her request. Instead, she refers to LCR 83.1(d)(1), which at 9 most authorizes waiver of the requirement that local counsel sign motions and other filings. See 10 LCR 83.1(d)(2); see also Burlington N. R. Co. v. Woods Indus., Inc., 815 F. Supp. 1384, 1393 11 (E.D. Wash. 1993) (granting motion to waive requirement for signature of local counsel, but 12 noting counsel appearing pro hac vice “shall continue to consult with local counsel.”). 13 The Court, while sympathetic to the difficulties identified in the pending motions and 14 appreciative of Hobballah’s willingness to provide Petitioner representation, finds no basis for

15 waiving the requirements of LCR 83.1(d). See generally Angel v. Marten, No. C21-7333, 2022 16 WL 18277781, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2022) (noting “[r]easons for requiring local counsel 17 include ‘the importance of knowing the Local Rules, the local standards of behavior or mores in 18 this district, [and] the accessibility of counsel[,]’” and that the court, “like other district courts, 19 enforces the local counsel requirement scrupulously.”) (quoting Daien v. Ysursa, No. C09-0022, 20 2009 WL 10711879, at *3 (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2009)). Therefore, the request to permit counsel to 21 appear pro hac vice without local counsel (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED. The denial of the request to 22 appear pro hac vice is without prejudice to a renewed request compliant with this Court’s rules. 23

24 1 Petitioner also filed a “Motion for Order to Show Cause, to Adopt the Standard 2 Immigration Habeas Scheduling Order, and for Expedited Consideration/Relief.” (Dkt. No. 4.) 3 The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to expedite (Dkt. No. 4) and has instead issued its 4 standard scheduling order (see Dkt. No. 7) for habeas petitions pursuant to General Order 10-25

5 found at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/General Order 10-25 re Immigration 6 Habeas.1.pdf. General Order 10-25 was entered on December 18, 2025 after consultation and 7 cooperation by various stakeholders, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Federal 8 Defender’s Office, and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Petitioner provides and the 9 Court finds no basis to require a different return and traverse schedule than that already 10 identified in the scheduling order. 11 The Clerk is directed to email a copy of this Order to Farah Hobballah at 12 farah@myfarahlawyer.com. 13 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026. 14 A 15 David G. Estudillo 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gia Huy Nguyen v. Field Office Director et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gia-huy-nguyen-v-field-office-director-et-al-wawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack