Ortiz Martinez v. Wamsley

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01822
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SANTIAGO ORTIZ MARTINEZ, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01822-TMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 9 FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND v. EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE 10 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 On September 19, 2025, Petitioners filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus. Dkt. 1. On the same day, Petitioners moved ex parte to request this Court issue an order 16 to show cause and expedited briefing schedule in this matter—five days for a response and 17 another three for a reply. Dkt. 2 at 6. The Court GRANTS the motion in part and orders an 18 expedited briefing schedule for the reasons that follow. 19 1. The Court retains discretion to determine when an answer or response to a section 20 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Sect. 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may 21 apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by [28 U.S.C. § 22 2254].”); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to 23 Habeas Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to fix a time to file an answer beyond 24 1 the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Even when following 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2243, the Court may allow up to twenty days for the return with good cause. 28 3 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause . . . shall be returned within three

4 days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.”). 5 While expedited briefing is warranted, the Court declines to adopt Petitioners’ 6 proposed briefing schedule. See Dkt. 2 at 6. 7 2. In the exercise of its discretion to fix the response deadline, the Court is mindful that 8 Congress has clearly indicated that habeas petitioners are entitled to a prompt ruling. 9 A court considering a habeas application must “forthwith award the writ or issue an 10 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 11 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added); see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963) (habeas 12 is meant to provide a “swift and imperative remedy”); In re Habeas Corpus Cases,

13 216 F.R.D. at 53 (“Undue delay in the disposition of habeas corpus cases is 14 unacceptable.”) 15 3. Thus, the Court examines the allegations and circumstances of each case in 16 determining the due date of a response. In examining the allegations here, the Court 17 finds there is a basis to expedite this matter. Petitioners allege that despite residing in 18 the United States for years before their arrests, they are unlawfully detained under 19 mandatory detention policies recently adopted by the Department of Homeland 20 Security (“DHS”) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Dkt. 1 21 ¶¶ 1, 16–20. Whether Petitioners are lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 22 presents the same legal question that is the subject of a certified class action pending

23 before this Court, in which the Court has already ruled that Respondents’ bond denial 24 policy is likely unlawful. See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239 1 (W.D. Wash. 2025); Dkt. 1 § 5. Because Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus 2 based on their interpretation of the same legal question, the case appears unlikely to 3 require detailed fact development. See Dkt. 1 {J 6-8. 4 4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 a. Petitioners’ motion, Dkt. 2, is GRANTED IN PART. 6 b. Respondents shall file a response to the habeas petition no later than October 7 8, 2025. Any arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall be made in 8 the response and not by separate motion. 9 c. Any reply Petitioners wish to file shall be due by October 14, 2025. The Clerk 10 shall note the matter for October 14, 2025. 11 d. The clerk is directed to effectuate immediate service of the habeas petition 12 filed in this case upon Respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this 13 order to usawaw. Habeas@usdo].gov. 14 15 Dated this 24th day of September, 2025. Lag 17 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXPEDITED BRIEFING