M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 M.M., Case No. 2:25-cv-02074-TMC 8 Petitioner, EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 9 ORDER v. 10 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 The Court has inherent power to reconsider and revise its own interlocutory rulings. City 16 of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001). The 17 Court sua sponte reconsiders its minute order (Dkt. 12) issued earlier today. 18 The Court intends to hold a hearing as soon as possible on petitioner’s motion for 19 temporary restraining order (Dkt. 11). The Court finds that Petitioner has established a likelihood 20 of success on the merits of his underlying habeas petition and finds that the affidavit of Nicolas 21 Olano sets forth sufficient facts to show at least some likelihood of imminent, irreparable harm to 22 Petitioner’s access to counsel from transfer out of this district during the pendency of his habeas 23 petition. Therefore, to preserve the status quo and prevent immediate harm before the parties can 24 be heard on this motion, the Court ORDERS that Respondents (and their officers, employees, l agents, or others working on their behalf) are temporarily PROHIBITED from transferring 2 Petitioner from this district pending further order of this Court. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 3 1364, 1369 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent 4 irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); see also 5 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. Of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda 6 Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (ex parte TROs serve a limited purpose of “preserving the status 7 quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 8 longer”). This ex parte Order will remain in place until the Court issues a full ruling on the TRO 9 motion after a hearing. The parties are directed to contact the courtroom deputy by email 10 tomorrow, October 31, 2025, to schedule a hearing. 11 Because counsel for Respondents have not yet appeared in this case, Petitioner’s counsel 12 are further directed to contact the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Western District of Washington 13 as soon as possible to ensure they receive a copy of this Order. 14 15 Dated this 30th day of October, 2025. Lag 17 TiffanyM. Cartwright United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24