Javein Jumel Coke v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

W.D. Washington

Javein Jumel Coke v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

DecidedJanuary 14, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-00071

StatusUnknown

This text of Javein Jumel Coke v. Pamela Bondi, et al. (Javein Jumel Coke v. Pamela Bondi, 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

Javein Jumel Coke v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JAVEIN JUMEL COKE, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C26-71-MLP 10 v. ORDER PROVISIONALLY GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION 11 PAMELA BONDI, et al., 12 Respondents. 13

14 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Javein Jumel Coke’s Emergency Motion for 15 Order Preventing Transfer During Pendency of Petition. (Mot. (dkt. # 10).) Petitioner requests 16 the Court issue an order preventing Respondents from removing him from this jurisdiction 17 before his habeas petition is adjudicated. (Id. at 1-2; dkt. # 10-7.) Having reviewed the motion 18 and the relevant record, the Court PROVISIONALLY GRANTS the Motion (dkt. # 10), pending 19 a response from Respondents. 20 Petitioner, a citizen of Jamaica, is currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 21 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, 22 Washington. Petitioner has been granted deferral of removal to Jamaica under the Convention 23 Against Torture. (Dkt. # 1 at 6.) 1 At 2:17 p.m. on January 13, 2026, Respondents filed a notice of intent to remove, 2 asserting that ICE “intends to remove Petitioner to Mexico.” (Dkt. # 9.) Respondents further 3 advised that “it may be necessary to first transfer Petitioner to another facility outside this 4 jurisdiction in order to facilitate the removal process.” (Id.) Respondents provided no indication

5 of when removal was planned, but asserted “ICE will not remove Petitioner from this District 6 sooner than 48 hours from the notice it provided to counsel” at 10:29 a.m. on January 13, 2026. 7 (Id.) After receiving notice, Petitioner’s counsel asked Respondents for any travel documents for 8 Mexico and was informed they were unnecessary for removal by land to Mexico. (Mot. at 1-2.) 9 On January 14, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant emergency Motion after contacting 10 Respondents and confirming that they opposed it. (Mot. at 5, Ex. 1 (dkt. # 10-1).) Petitioner 11 contends removal from this district will interfere with his access to counsel and ability to 12 participate in the proceedings. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner provides declarations evidencing Mexico’s 13 policy not to take deportees who refuse to go willingly to Mexico. (Id., Exs. 2-6 (dkt. ## 10-2 to 14 10-6).)

15 Removing Petitioner from this District and this country would have significant 16 ramifications for the pending habeas petition. The Court may grant an emergency motion to 17 preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 18 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable 19 harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); United States v. United 20 Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to 21 preserve existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” 22 unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is 23 1 necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the 2 case. See United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 4 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. # 10) is PROVISIONALLY GRANTED, pending

5 Respondents’ response to the Motion. This grant is solely for the purpose of maintaining the 6 status quo so that the Court may review the merits of the motion after full briefing. 7 (2) Respondents are PROHIBITED from removing Plaintiff from either the United 8 States or this jurisdiction, without further order of the Court. 9 (3) Respondents have up to and including January 20, 2026, to file a response to the 10 Motion. Petitioner has up to and including January 23, 2026, to file a reply. 11 Dated this 14th day of January, 2026. 12 A 13 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JAVEIN JUMEL COKE, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C26-71-MLP 10 v. ORDER PROVISIONALLY GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION 11 PAMELA BONDI, et al., 12 Respondents. 13

14 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Javein Jumel Coke’s Emergency Motion for 15 Order Preventing Transfer During Pendency of Petition. (Mot. (dkt. # 10).) Petitioner requests 16 the Court issue an order preventing Respondents from removing him from this jurisdiction 17 before his habeas petition is adjudicated. (Id. at 1-2; dkt. # 10-7.) Having reviewed the motion 18 and the relevant record, the Court PROVISIONALLY GRANTS the Motion (dkt. # 10), pending 19 a response from Respondents. 20 Petitioner, a citizen of Jamaica, is currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 21 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, 22 Washington. Petitioner has been granted deferral of removal to Jamaica under the Convention 23 Against Torture. (Dkt. # 1 at 6.) 1 At 2:17 p.m. on January 13, 2026, Respondents filed a notice of intent to remove, 2 asserting that ICE “intends to remove Petitioner to Mexico.” (Dkt. # 9.) Respondents further 3 advised that “it may be necessary to first transfer Petitioner to another facility outside this 4 jurisdiction in order to facilitate the removal process.” (Id.) Respondents provided no indication

5 of when removal was planned, but asserted “ICE will not remove Petitioner from this District 6 sooner than 48 hours from the notice it provided to counsel” at 10:29 a.m. on January 13, 2026. 7 (Id.) After receiving notice, Petitioner’s counsel asked Respondents for any travel documents for 8 Mexico and was informed they were unnecessary for removal by land to Mexico. (Mot. at 1-2.) 9 On January 14, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant emergency Motion after contacting 10 Respondents and confirming that they opposed it. (Mot. at 5, Ex. 1 (dkt. # 10-1).) Petitioner 11 contends removal from this district will interfere with his access to counsel and ability to 12 participate in the proceedings. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner provides declarations evidencing Mexico’s 13 policy not to take deportees who refuse to go willingly to Mexico. (Id., Exs. 2-6 (dkt. ## 10-2 to 14 10-6).)

15 Removing Petitioner from this District and this country would have significant 16 ramifications for the pending habeas petition. The Court may grant an emergency motion to 17 preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 18 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable 19 harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); United States v. United 20 Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to 21 preserve existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” 22 unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is 23 1 necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the 2 case. See United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 4 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. # 10) is PROVISIONALLY GRANTED, pending

5 Respondents’ response to the Motion. This grant is solely for the purpose of maintaining the 6 status quo so that the Court may review the merits of the motion after full briefing. 7 (2) Respondents are PROHIBITED from removing Plaintiff from either the United 8 States or this jurisdiction, without further order of the Court. 9 (3) Respondents have up to and including January 20, 2026, to file a response to the 10 Motion. Petitioner has up to and including January 23, 2026, to file a reply. 11 Dated this 14th day of January, 2026. 12 A 13 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Javein Jumel Coke v. Pamela Bondi, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/javein-jumel-coke-v-pamela-bondi-et-al-wawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack