Ivan Chekhovskii v. Bruce Scott, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02550
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 IVAN CHEKHOVSKII, Case No. 2:25-cv-02550-JLR-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER FOR RETURN AND 8 STATUS REPORT, § 2241 BRUCE SCOTT, ET AL, PETITION 9 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner, by counsel, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 12 Dkt. 1. 13 1. The Court retains the discretion to determine when an answer or response to a 14 § 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 15 (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to 16 fix a time to file an answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A 17 court considering a habeas corpus petition must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 18 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added). The Court examines the allegations and 20 circumstances of each case in determining the due date of a response. 21 Having reviewed the petition, the Court ORDERS: 22 23 24 1 2. Respondents shall file a return to the habeas petition no later than December 2 30, 2025. Any arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall be made in the 3 return and not by separate motion. 4 3. Petitioner’s traverse shall be due by January 6, 2026. The Clerk shall note the

5 matter for January 6, 2026, as ready for the Court’s consideration. 6 4. The Clerk is directed to serve this habeas corpus petition, Dkt. 1, upon 7 respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this order to 8 usawaw@habeas@usdoj.gov. 9 5. Respondents shall provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this habeas 10 action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the 11 weekend or holiday) prior to any action to move or transfer Petitioner from the 12 Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or to remove him 13 from the United States. Because transfer of Petitioner to another district could interfere 14 with his access to counsel and ability to participate in the habeas corpus proceedings,

15 the Respondents are ORDERED to refrain from transferring Petitioner to custody in a 16 facility outside the Western District of Washington while this case is pending. 17 6. The parties have a right to have the matter heard by a United States District 18 Judge and may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 19 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). Consent is voluntary. Washington v. Kijakazi, 20 72 F.4th 1029, 1036-1040 (9th Cir. 2023). The Magistrate Judge will have jurisdiction 21 only if all parties consent. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-504 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 23

24 1 Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline 2 consent by no later than December 23, 2025, by emailing Deputy Gayle Riekena at 3 gayle_riekena@wawd.uscourts.gov. 4 If the parties unanimously consent, Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke will

5 preside over the entire case through judgment. If any party does not consent to the 6 jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, the case will remain assigned to District Judge 7 James L. Robart. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 73. See also 8 General Order 5-25. 9 10 11 Dated this 17th day of December, 2025. 12 13 A 14 Theresa L. Fricke 15 United States Magistrate Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24