1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 MOHAMMAD HASAN HUSSAINI, Case No. 2:26-cv-00485-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Hussaini filed this federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 12 2241, challenging his detention on Due Process grounds under the Fifth Amendment. 13 Dkt. 2 at 8-10, 13-19. 14 He alleges a deprivation of Due Process, concerning the circumstances of his 15 arrest and re-detention and informs the Court of his serious medical situation as part of 16 the Due Process criteria by which the Court evaluates whether re-arrest and re- 17 detention comply with Constitutional requirements such as evaluation of risk of flight or 18 dangerousness. Id.; see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976); see 19 also E.A.T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1320-24 (W.D. Wash. 2025) 20 (analyzing the Mathews factors, and holding that Due Process requires an 21 individualized assessment of risk of flight and risk of dangerousness in a hearing 22 concerning re-arrest and re-detention). 23 24 1 On February 16, 2026, respondents asserted the Department of Homeland 2 Security (“DHS”) “has designated Petitioner as a known or suspected terrorist (‘KST’).” 3 Dkt. 4 at 1-2. Respondents’ filings also claim petitioner’s re-detention was based on his 4 alleged KST status. E.g. Dkt. 4 at 3; Dkt. 5 at 3-4; Dkt. 6-2.
5 Respondents have not addressed petitioner’s claim, relevant to risk of flight and 6 risk of dangerousness, that he recently had a stroke and while detained he cannot 7 access medical care. See generally J.M. v. Oddo, No. 3:24-cv-255-KAP, 2025 WL 8 3706433 (W.D. Penn. December 22, 2025) (granting habeas corpus relief; among the 9 reasons for ordering a bond hearing, is that detention had become prolonged and 10 petitioner’s health had deteriorated significantly; he needed medical attention that is not 11 available to him while in immigration detention); see also Johnston v. Marsh, 227 F.2d 12 528, 529-31 (3d Cir. 1955) (upholding habeas corpus relief; petitioner who was diabetic 13 had a health crisis that required urgent treatment, and he could not obtain such 14 treatment while incarcerated; Court held habeas corpus jurisdiction was proper for a
15 due process claim that he should be granted a bail hearing to determine whether it was 16 appropriate to released him to obtain treatment).1 17 On February 26, 2026, the Court ordered respondents to expand the record to 18 include relevant information regarding petitioner’s alleged KST status on or before 19 March 6, 2026. Dkt. 11. 20 21 1 See generally, Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989) (bail in a habeas corpus case filed under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2254 may only be granted if the case is extraordinary, “involving special circumstances or a high probability of success”) (per curiam); Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 507-09 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 23 the district court’s decision granting bail pending appeal of a Section 2254 habeas corpus petition under FRAP 23; observing that a federal court has authority to grant bail to a state prisoner while the habeas 24 corpus petition is pending, and this authority is inherent in the power to grant the writ). 1 On March 4, 2026, respondents stated they are “continuing to assess what 2 materials may be appropriate for filing” and “that there are no unclassified documents 3 available for filing prior to March 6, 2026.” Dkt. 12. As of filing the present Order, the 4 Court has received no further filings from respondents on petitioner’s alleged KST
5 status. 6 Considering the lack of evidence to explain the KST status, and that respondents 7 have not addressed whether petitioner has shown his case would be considered 8 extraordinary and his health concerns should be considered a special circumstance and 9 high probability of success on the habeas corpus petition, the Court ORDERS 10 respondents show cause on the issues listed below on or before March 17, 2026: 11 1. Explain the legal meaning, context, source of law, definition, and any other 12 explanation of the status being described as “known suspected terrorist” in this 13 matter, such as the mechanism or program it originates from. See, e.g., Latif v. 14 Holder, 686 F.3d 1122, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing the “Terrorist
15 Screening Center (‘TSC’)” which “maintains a list of known and suspected 16 terrorists” based on “nominations” from certain federal agencies).2 17 2. Respondents have suggested that plaintiff is a known terrorist but have not 18 asserted state secrets privilege in this matter. See Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 19 1159, 1165-67 (9th Cir. 1998) (describing the state secrets privilege doctrine 20 generally). If respondents are prohibited from disclosing information based on a 21 2 The Ninth Circuit elaborates that “[g]enerally, nominations must be based on reasonable suspicion 22 derived from the totality of available information that the individual is a known or suspected terrorist,” including “articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant a 23 determination that an individual is known or suspected to be, or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of or related to, terrorism and terrorist activities.” Latif, 686 F.3d at 24 1125 n.2 (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 claim of privilege, they must file a motion for protective order and explain the 2 legal basis for suppressing the evidence. 3 3. Provide the Court with an updated report concerning the current status of 4 petitioner’s health. This report must include any treatment or transfers to
5 treatment facilities since petitioner’s declaration dated January 19, 2026. (Dkt. 8). 6 Petitioner declares, “I suffered a stroke” at a prior detention facility and the 7 “doctor . . . told me that I would need surgery, but that they could not do it while I 8 was in detention.” Dkt. 8 at 3. Petitioner also states that since arriving at the 9 Northwest ICE Processing Center, he “ha[s] been using a wheelchair” and that 10 while he “was able to get physical therapy . . . my condition has not improved . . . 11 and the doctors continue to recommend surgery” but he was “only scheduled for 12 another MRI.” Dkt. 8 at 3. 13 If the respondents determine that their response to this Order to Show Cause, 14 any assertion of a privilege, or any expansion of the record, would require the
15 respondents to provide the Court with confidential or sensitive information, the 16 respondents may file a motion for a protective order, motion for in camera review, or a 17 motion for a specialized procedure.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 MOHAMMAD HASAN HUSSAINI, Case No. 2:26-cv-00485-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Hussaini filed this federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 12 2241, challenging his detention on Due Process grounds under the Fifth Amendment. 13 Dkt. 2 at 8-10, 13-19. 14 He alleges a deprivation of Due Process, concerning the circumstances of his 15 arrest and re-detention and informs the Court of his serious medical situation as part of 16 the Due Process criteria by which the Court evaluates whether re-arrest and re- 17 detention comply with Constitutional requirements such as evaluation of risk of flight or 18 dangerousness. Id.; see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976); see 19 also E.A.T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1320-24 (W.D. Wash. 2025) 20 (analyzing the Mathews factors, and holding that Due Process requires an 21 individualized assessment of risk of flight and risk of dangerousness in a hearing 22 concerning re-arrest and re-detention). 23 24 1 On February 16, 2026, respondents asserted the Department of Homeland 2 Security (“DHS”) “has designated Petitioner as a known or suspected terrorist (‘KST’).” 3 Dkt. 4 at 1-2. Respondents’ filings also claim petitioner’s re-detention was based on his 4 alleged KST status. E.g. Dkt. 4 at 3; Dkt. 5 at 3-4; Dkt. 6-2.
5 Respondents have not addressed petitioner’s claim, relevant to risk of flight and 6 risk of dangerousness, that he recently had a stroke and while detained he cannot 7 access medical care. See generally J.M. v. Oddo, No. 3:24-cv-255-KAP, 2025 WL 8 3706433 (W.D. Penn. December 22, 2025) (granting habeas corpus relief; among the 9 reasons for ordering a bond hearing, is that detention had become prolonged and 10 petitioner’s health had deteriorated significantly; he needed medical attention that is not 11 available to him while in immigration detention); see also Johnston v. Marsh, 227 F.2d 12 528, 529-31 (3d Cir. 1955) (upholding habeas corpus relief; petitioner who was diabetic 13 had a health crisis that required urgent treatment, and he could not obtain such 14 treatment while incarcerated; Court held habeas corpus jurisdiction was proper for a
15 due process claim that he should be granted a bail hearing to determine whether it was 16 appropriate to released him to obtain treatment).1 17 On February 26, 2026, the Court ordered respondents to expand the record to 18 include relevant information regarding petitioner’s alleged KST status on or before 19 March 6, 2026. Dkt. 11. 20 21 1 See generally, Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989) (bail in a habeas corpus case filed under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2254 may only be granted if the case is extraordinary, “involving special circumstances or a high probability of success”) (per curiam); Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 507-09 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 23 the district court’s decision granting bail pending appeal of a Section 2254 habeas corpus petition under FRAP 23; observing that a federal court has authority to grant bail to a state prisoner while the habeas 24 corpus petition is pending, and this authority is inherent in the power to grant the writ). 1 On March 4, 2026, respondents stated they are “continuing to assess what 2 materials may be appropriate for filing” and “that there are no unclassified documents 3 available for filing prior to March 6, 2026.” Dkt. 12. As of filing the present Order, the 4 Court has received no further filings from respondents on petitioner’s alleged KST
5 status. 6 Considering the lack of evidence to explain the KST status, and that respondents 7 have not addressed whether petitioner has shown his case would be considered 8 extraordinary and his health concerns should be considered a special circumstance and 9 high probability of success on the habeas corpus petition, the Court ORDERS 10 respondents show cause on the issues listed below on or before March 17, 2026: 11 1. Explain the legal meaning, context, source of law, definition, and any other 12 explanation of the status being described as “known suspected terrorist” in this 13 matter, such as the mechanism or program it originates from. See, e.g., Latif v. 14 Holder, 686 F.3d 1122, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing the “Terrorist
15 Screening Center (‘TSC’)” which “maintains a list of known and suspected 16 terrorists” based on “nominations” from certain federal agencies).2 17 2. Respondents have suggested that plaintiff is a known terrorist but have not 18 asserted state secrets privilege in this matter. See Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 19 1159, 1165-67 (9th Cir. 1998) (describing the state secrets privilege doctrine 20 generally). If respondents are prohibited from disclosing information based on a 21 2 The Ninth Circuit elaborates that “[g]enerally, nominations must be based on reasonable suspicion 22 derived from the totality of available information that the individual is a known or suspected terrorist,” including “articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant a 23 determination that an individual is known or suspected to be, or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of or related to, terrorism and terrorist activities.” Latif, 686 F.3d at 24 1125 n.2 (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 claim of privilege, they must file a motion for protective order and explain the 2 legal basis for suppressing the evidence. 3 3. Provide the Court with an updated report concerning the current status of 4 petitioner’s health. This report must include any treatment or transfers to
5 treatment facilities since petitioner’s declaration dated January 19, 2026. (Dkt. 8). 6 Petitioner declares, “I suffered a stroke” at a prior detention facility and the 7 “doctor . . . told me that I would need surgery, but that they could not do it while I 8 was in detention.” Dkt. 8 at 3. Petitioner also states that since arriving at the 9 Northwest ICE Processing Center, he “ha[s] been using a wheelchair” and that 10 while he “was able to get physical therapy . . . my condition has not improved . . . 11 and the doctors continue to recommend surgery” but he was “only scheduled for 12 another MRI.” Dkt. 8 at 3. 13 If the respondents determine that their response to this Order to Show Cause, 14 any assertion of a privilege, or any expansion of the record, would require the
15 respondents to provide the Court with confidential or sensitive information, the 16 respondents may file a motion for a protective order, motion for in camera review, or a 17 motion for a specialized procedure. For example, Local Rule 5(g) and General Orders 18 07-25, 09-24, and 03-21 give guidance on motions to seal, or motions to handle 19 documents that would qualify as “highly sensitive.” 20 Alternatively, if the respondents are unable to fully respond to the above 21 requests, or need additional time, they shall file a motion on or before March 17, 2026, 22 explaining the good cause basis for an extension of time, or the substantive legal and 23 factual basis for failure to comply with this Order.
24 1 Dated this 10th day of March, 2026. 2 3 A
4 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23