Moises David Bonilla Mejia v. Laura Hermosillo, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MOISES DAVID BONILLA MEJIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-02196 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 On November 4, 2025, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus. Dkt. 1. The Court issues an order to show cause and expedited briefing schedule for the 16 reasons that follow. 17 1. The Court retains discretion to determine when an answer or response to a section 18 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Sect. 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may 19 apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by [28 U.S.C. § 20 2254].”); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to 21 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). Even when following 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2243, the Court may allow up to twenty days for the return with good cause. 28 24 l U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause. . . shall be returned within three 2 days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.”). 3 2. Inthe exercise of its discretion to fix the response deadline, the Court is mindful that 4 Congress has clearly indicated that habeas petitioners are entitled to a prompt ruling. 5 A court considering a habeas application must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 6 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 7 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added); see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963) (habeas 8 is meant to provide a “swift and imperative remedy”); In re Habeas Corpus Cases, 9 216 F.R.D. at 53 (“Undue delay in the disposition of habeas corpus cases is 10 unacceptable.”) 11 3. Thus, the Court examines the allegations and circumstances of each case in 12 determining the due date of a response. 13 4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 14 a. Respondents shall file their return to the habeas petition no later than 15 November 21, 2025. Any arguments that the petition should be dismissed 16 shall be made in the response and not by separate motion. 17 b. Any traverse Petitioner wishes to file shall be due by November 25, 2025. The 18 Clerk shall note the matter for November 25, 2025. 19 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 29 || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 21 Dated this 13th day of November, 2025.

23 Tiffany, Cartwright United States District Judge 24