Marco Antonio Barraza Enriquez v. Markwayne Mullin et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 26, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02352
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MARCO ANTONIO BARRAZA CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02352-LK 11 ENRIQUEZ, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Petitioner, v. 13 MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al.,1 14 Respondents. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Petitioner Marco Antonio Barraza 17 Enriquez’s amended habeas petition is unsigned by him and unverified. Dkt. No. 7-2; see also Dkt. 18 No. 1 (unverified original petition). Habeas petitions must be verified “by the person for whose 19 relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Local Civil Rule 100(e) 20 permits third parties to verify a petition on behalf of someone in custody, but that person “shall set 21 forth therein the reason why [the petition] is not made and verified by the party in custody, and 22 23 1 Markwayne Mullin is automatically substituted in his official capacity for Kristi Noem pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 shall state he or she knows the facts set forth therein, or if upon information and belief, the sources 2 of his or her information shall be stated.” 3 Here, Barraza Enriquez has not signed his petition, and his counsel—who signed the 4 petition—has not verified it pursuant to Local Civil Rule 100(e). See Dkt. No. 7-2. Moreover, as

5 Respondents note, Dkt. No. 19 at 3, Barraza Enriquez has not filed a declaration attesting to the 6 facts relevant to his claim that the government failed to follow required procedures to revoke his 7 Order of Supervision. Cf. Dkt. No. 7-1 at 102–05 (Barraza Enriquez’s declaration describing other 8 facts). The absence of a declaration on this issue compounds the problematic absence of the 9 verification. Compare Manjit Singh v. Bondi, No. C26-0477-KKE, 2026 WL 586230, at *2 (W.D. 10 Wash. Mar. 2, 2026) (considering petition properly verified when Petitioner’s counsel complied 11 with Local Civil Rule 100(e)), with Pogosian v. Santacruz, No. 5:26-cv-00540-SRM-E, 2026 WL 12 413639, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2026) (denying motion for temporary restraining order when 13 “the facts in the Petition are not verified, there is no statement addressing 28 U.S.C § 2242 or [the 14 local civil rule], and the facts in the exhibits and declaration d[id] not inform th[e] inquiry”); see

15 also Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A verified complaint 16 may be treated as an affidavit, and, as such, it is evidence that may support injunctive relief.”), 17 overruled on other grounds by Bd. of Trs. of Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers, 941 F.3d 18 1195 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc)). 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 //

24 // 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Barraza Enriquez to file a signed and verified petition 2 within 14 days of the date of this Order.2 If Barraza Enriquez fails to do so, the Court will dismiss 3 this petition without prejudice. No further briefing will be accepted in this matter. 4 Dated this 26th day of March, 2026.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2 Because Barraza Enriquez has already amended his petition once, the Court does not grant him further leave to 24 amend his petition other than to verify it.