Hoang Ngoc Dao v. Pamela Bondi et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02340
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 HOANG NGOC DAO, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02340-LK 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE, REQUEST FOR 13 PAMELA BONDI et al., NOTICE PRIOR TO TRANSFER OR REMOVAL, AND GIVING NOTICE 14 Respondents. OF RIGHT TO CONSENT 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Hoang Ngoc Dao’s Unopposed Motion 17 for Briefing Schedule for his pending Section 2241 habeas petition. Dkt. No. 5. Mr. Dao requests 18 that the Court require Respondents to file a response to the habeas petition no later than 14 days 19 after the petition was received by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, then Petitioner may file a reply no 20 later than five days after the response is filed. Id. at 1. Mr. Dao further requests that the Court 21 “terminate the referral to Magistrate Judge Leupold in order to expedite a final ruling by the 22 Court.” Id. Mr. Dao notes that the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not oppose these requests. Id. The 23 Court finds that the expedited briefing request is justified and grants the requested briefing 24 1 schedule. See, e.g., Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985). The Court also 2 terminates the referral to Magistrate Judge Leupold. 3 Mr. Dao further asks the Court to order that, “while the habeas petition is pending, 4 Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States or transfer Petitioner to another

5 facility without providing Petitioner’s counsel with at least 48 hours’ notice of the removal or 6 transfer,” and “[i]f the 48-hour period would expire on a weekend or legal holiday, the period 7 would continue until the same time on the next day that is not a weekend or legal holiday.” Id. at 8 2. Mr. Dao states that “[t]he U.S. Attorney’s Office has indicated that it takes no position on this 9 request and defers to the Court.” Id. The Court grants this request as well based on the lack of 10 opposition and the specific circumstances of this case.1 11 Finally, a notice regarding consent to a Magistrate Judge will be added to the docket related 12 to this Order. Consent is voluntary. Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they 13 consent or decline consent by no later than December 5, 2025, by emailing the attached form to 14 Natalie Wood at Natalie_Wood@wawd.uscourts.gov. If the parties consent, a Magistrate Judge

15 will preside over the entire case through judgment. If the parties decline consent, the case will 16 remain assigned to the undersigned. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 73; see 17 also General Order 5-25. 18 Dated this 1st day of December, 2025. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22

1 In addition, a federal district court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] . . . jurisdiction[] and 23 agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Under this authority, a court may order injunctive relief prohibiting the government from transferring a petitioner out of the district while habeas corpus proceedings are 24 ongoing. See Oliveros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07117-BLF, 2025 WL 2677125, at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025).