Marin Ariel Garcia Gabriel v. Laura Hermosillo et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02594
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MARIN ARIEL GARCIA GABRIEL, Case No. 2:25-cv-02594-DGE-GJL 8 Petitioner, SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING 9 RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD 10 NOT BE GRANTED LAURA HERMOSILLO et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) and an accompanying 16 motion (Dkt. No. 2) for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging 17 that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court has 18 discretion to determine when a response to a § 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Sect. 2254 19 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not 20 covered by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985) 21 (pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to fix a time to file an answer beyond 22 the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A court considering a habeas corpus petition 23 “shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the 24 writ should not be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 1 Because the relief the Petitioner seeks via the motion for TRO is his immediate release, a 2 decision on the motion for TRO will effectively grant or deny the habeas petition. As a result, 3 the Court will treat the pending motion for TRO as a motion to decide his habeas petition on an

4 expedited basis. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion for TRO (Dkt. No. 5 2). The Court directs Respondents to show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not be 6 granted and ORDERS: 7 1. Respondents shall file a return to the habeas petition no later than December 31, 8 2025. The return shall be noted on the Court’s motion docket for the due date of the 9 Petitioner’s traverse – 5 days after the due date of the respondent’s return. Any 10 arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall be made in the return and not by 11 separate motion. The return shall be filed using the “Response to Habeas Petition” 12 ECF filing event. 13 2. Any traverse by Petitioner shall be filed no later January 7, 2026. A traverse filed 14 through ECF shall be filed using the “Reply to Response to Motion” filing event. 15 3. Respondents shall provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this habeas action at 16 least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into a weekend, 17 holiday, or date the Court is closed) prior to any action to move or transfer any 18 Petitioner(s) from the Western District of Washington or to remove them from the 19 United States. 20 4. The Clerk is directed to effectuate immediate service, if service has not already been 21 accomplished, of the habeas petition filed in this case upon Respondents by emailing 22 a copy of the habeas petition and this order to

23 USAWAW.ImmigrationHabeasService@usdoj.gov. 24 1 5. Petitioner’s counsel shall provide Petitioner’s A-file number promptly to the U.S. 2 Attorney’s Office via email to USAWAW.ImmigrationHabeasAnumbers@usdoj.gov. 3 6. If either party seeks an expedited or enlarged briefing schedule, counsel for that party

4 (or the party themselves, if unrepresented) shall contact the opposing counsel (or 5 party) promptly to meet and confer. The parties shall then file a joint expedited 6 motion, noted for the same day it is filed, that contains either an agreed briefing 7 schedule or the parties’ competing proposals for a briefing schedule. 8 9 Dated this 17th day of December, 2025. 10 A 11 David G. Estudillo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24