Reza Daneshfar v. Facility Administrator, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01708
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 REZA DANESHFAR, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-1708-DGE-MLP 10 v. ORDER, § 2241 SERVICE 11 FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR, et al., 12 Respondents. 13

14 Petitioner has filed an immigration habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging 15 his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Courts have discretion in 16 setting the briefing schedule for a § 2241 habeas petition and consider the individual 17 circumstances of each case when determining appropriate deadlines. See Clutchette v. Rushen, 18 770 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1985). The Court, having reviewed the petition, ORDERS as 19 follows: 20 (1) Petitioner has named as respondent the Facility Administrator for the Northwest 21 ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington (“NWIPC”). (Dkt. # 6 at 1.) The proper 22 respondent for § 2241 petitions, however, is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner]”; 23 i.e., “the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held[.]” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 1 426, 434 (2004) (first alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242); see also Doe v. Garland, 2 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024) (vacating grant of federal habeas relief where immigration 3 detainee’s direct custodian was not named as respondent). Petitioner indicates he is currently 4 detained at the NWIPC, so the proper respondent for this action is the individual in charge of that

5 facility. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to add Bruce Scott, Warden of NWIPC, as a 6 respondent in this action. 7 (2) If not previously accomplished, electronic posting of this Order and Petitioner’s 8 § 2241 habeas petition shall effect service upon the United States Attorney of the petition and all 9 supporting documents. Service upon the United States Attorney is deemed to be service upon the 10 named Respondent(s). 11 (3) On or before November 24, 2025, Respondent(s) shall show cause why a writ of 12 habeas corpus should not be granted by filing a return as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. As a part 13 of such return, Respondent(s) shall address and submit evidence relevant to Petitioner’s 14 allegation that his detention is unlawful. Respondent(s) shall file the return with the Clerk of the

15 Court and shall serve a copy upon Petitioner. 16 (4) Petitioner may file and serve a response no later than December 8, 2025. 17 Respondents may file and serve a reply no later than December 11, 2025, and the Clerk shall 18 note the matter as ready for the Court’s consideration on December 11, 2025. 19 (5) The parties have a right to consent to have the case heard by the undersigned 20 Magistrate Judge. Consent is voluntary. Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether 21 they consent or decline consent by no later than December 8, 2025, by emailing Deputy Tim 22 Farrell at tim_farrell@wawd.uscourts.gov. If the parties consent, the undersigned Magistrate 23 Judge will preside over the entire case through judgment. If the parties decline, the case will 1 remain assigned to the Honorable David G. Estudillo and referred to the undersigned Magistrate 2 Judge. 3 (6) The Clerk is directed to add Bruce Scott, Warden of NWIPC, as a respondent in 4 this action, and to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable David G.

5 Estudillo. 6 Dated this 13th day of November, 2025. 7 A 8 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23