Marco Cantero Garcia, et al. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02092
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MARCO CANTERO GARCIA, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02092-TMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE 9 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 10 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 On October 24, 2025, Petitioners filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus. Dkt. 1. The same day, Petitioners moved ex parte to request this Court issue an order to 16 show cause and expedited briefing schedule requiring Respondents to file a response within three 17 days and to provide notice “prior to any action to move or transfer Petitioners from [the 18 Northwest Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (“NWIPC”)].” Dkt. 2 at 1, 19 6–7. The Court GRANTS the motion in part and orders an expedited briefing schedule for the 20 reasons that follow. 21 1. The Court retains discretion to determine when an answer or response to a section 22 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Sect. 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may 23 apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by [28 U.S.C. § 24 1 2254].”); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985) (explaining 2 that pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to fix a time to file an 3 answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Even when following

4 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court may allow up to twenty days for the return with good 5 cause. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause . . . shall be returned 6 within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is 7 allowed.”). 8 2. In the exercise of its discretion to fix the response deadline, the Court is mindful that 9 Congress has clearly indicated that habeas petitioners are entitled to a prompt ruling. 10 A court considering a habeas application must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 11 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added); see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963)

13 (explaining that habeas is meant to provide a “swift and imperative remedy”); In re 14 Habeas Corpus Cases, 216 F.R.D. at 53 (“Undue delay in the disposition of habeas 15 corpus cases is unacceptable.”). 16 3. Thus, the Court examines the allegations and circumstances of each case in 17 determining the due date of a response. In examining the allegations here, the Court 18 finds there is a basis to expedite this matter. Petitioners, who resided in the United 19 States for years before their arrests, allege that they are entitled to relief under 20 Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, in which the Court declared that the Tacoma 21 Immigration Court’s practice of denying bond to certain detainees on the basis of 22 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) was unlawful. --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025

23 WL 2782499, at *27 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025); see Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1–3, 36–40. Four 24 petitioners—Marco Cantero Garcia, Jose Villalvozo-Benitez, Armando Benitez 1 Chavez, and Manuel Villalba Cordova—ask the Court to order their immediate 2 release from custody or, in the alternative, release upon payment of their respective 3 alternative bond amounts set by Immigration Judges (“IJ”s). Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 4–13, 18–23;

4 see Dkt. 3-3 at 2; Dkt. 3-7 at 2–3; Dkt. 3-10 at 2; Dkt. 3-17 at 2. Petitioner Kevin 5 Munoz-Quiterio, who was previously apprehended in 2016 and who was deemed 6 ineligible for release in his 2025 bond hearing because he presents a danger to the 7 community, seeks an order “requiring Respondents to consider him detained under 8 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and ordering that they may not deny his bond appeal or affirm the 9 IJ order on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) detention applies to him.” Dkt. 1 10 ¶¶ 14–17, 24, d; see Dkt. 3-12 at 2–3; Dkt. 3-13 at 2. Because the question of the 11 relief available to Munoz-Quiterio is more complicated than that presented by a 12 habeas petition from a typical Rodriguez Vazquez class member, the Court finds that a

13 longer briefing schedule is needed. 14 4. Petitioners further request that the Court require Respondents to provide notice of at 15 least 48 hours before taking action to move or transfer any Petitioner from NWIPC to 16 another facility or out of the United States. Dkt. 2 at 6. Petitioners claim that such 17 notice will permit them to seek emergency relief from this Court prior to a transfer. 18 Id. To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter 19 jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may 20 issue an order to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of 21 Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve 22 existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive

23 relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when 24 the order is necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s 1 jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). To 2 allow Petitioners time to move for emergency relief in the event they are to be 3 transferred or removed before this Court reviews their petition, the Court ORDERS 4 that Respondents must provide Petitioners and Petitioners’ counsel in this habeas 5 action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the 6 weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer any Petitioner from NWIPC or to 7 remove him from the United States. 8 5. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 a. Petitioners’ ex parte motion for order to show cause, Dkt. 2, is GRANTED. 10 b. Respondents shall file a response to the habeas petition no later than 11 November 4, 2025. Any arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall 12 be made in the response and not by separate motion. 13 c. Any reply Petitioner wishes to file shall be due by November 6, 2025. The 14 clerk shall note the matter for November 6, 2025. 15 d. Respondents shall provide Petitioners and Petitioners’ counsel in this habeas 16 action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into 17 the weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer any Petitioner from 18 NWIPC or to remove him from the United States. 19 e. The clerk is directed to effectuate immediate service of the habeas petition 20 filed in this case upon Respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this 71 order to usawaw.Habeas@usdo].gov. 22 Dated this 29th day of October, 2025. 23 - CC 24 TiffanyM. Cartwright

1 United States District Judge

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24