Milenyis Yocelina Gomez Candelo v. Kristi Noem et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE MILENYIS YOCELINA GOMEZ CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00576-JNW ORDER Petitioner, v. KRISTI NOEM et al., Respondents. The Court has reviewed Petitioner Gomez Candelo’s traverse and notes that it raises due process arguments that were not specifically addressed in her habeas petition. The Court finds, however, that these arguments do not present entirely new claims or grounds for relief because the Petition expressly asserts that Gomez Candelo’s detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1 (Petitioner “is being unlawfully detained by Respondents in violation of . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); id. at 8 (Petition’s prayer for relief includes: “Declare that Petitioner is being unlawfully detained in violation of . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 1; Amendment.”). The Court is also mindful that it must construe Gomez Candelo’s

petition liberally, given her pro se status. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Nevertheless, fairness requires that the Government have an opportunity to

{respond to the Fifth Amendment arguments Gomez Candelo fleshes out in her

traverse, including the argument that her re-detention violates due process because

G she was detained without notice or a pre-detention hearing. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Respondents may file a reply to Gomez

Candelo’s traverse by no later than March 20, 2026, addressing her Fifth

Amendment arguments. Dated this 16th day of March, 2026.

Co f= N. Whitehead United States District Judge