Rubin Temahagari v. Pamela Bondi et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02484
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 RUBIN TEMAHAGARI, CASE NO. 25-cv-02484-LK 8 Petitioner, 9 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED v. MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE 10 AND PROHIBITING TRANSFER PAMELA BONDI et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Rubin Temahagari’s Unopposed Motion 15 for Briefing Schedule for his pending Section 2241 habeas petition. Dkt. No. 3. Mr. Temahagari 16 requests that the Court require Respondents to “file a response to the habeas petition no later than 17 14 days after the petition was received by the U.S. Attorney’s Office” and permit Petitioner to file 18 a reply “no later than five days after the response is filed.” Id. at 1. Mr. Temahagari further requests 19 that the Court “terminate the referral to the Magistrate Judge in order to expedite a final ruling by 20 the Court.” Id. Mr. Temahagari notes that the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not oppose these 21 requests. Id. The Court finds that the expedited briefing request is justified and grants the requested 22 briefing schedule. See, e.g., Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985). The 23 Court also terminates the referral to Magistrate Judge Fricke. 24 1 Mr. Temahagari further asks the Court to order that, “while the habeas petition is pending, 2 Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States or transfer Petitioner to another 3 facility without providing Petitioner’s counsel with at least 48 hours’ notice of the removal or

4 transfer,” and “[i]f the 48-hour period would expire on a weekend or legal holiday, the period 5 would continue until the same time on the next day that is not a weekend or legal holiday.” Dkt. 6 No. 3 at 2. Mr. Temahagari states that “[t]he U.S. Attorney’s Office has indicated that it takes no 7 position on this request and defers to the Court.” Id. The Court grants this request as well based 8 on the lack of opposition and the specific circumstances of this case.1 9 Finally, a notice regarding consent to a Magistrate Judge will be added to the docket related 10 to this Order. Consent is voluntary. Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they 11 consent or decline consent by no later than December 12, 2025. If the parties consent, a Magistrate 12 Judge will preside over the entire case through judgment. If the parties decline consent, the case 13 will remain assigned to the undersigned. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 73; see also General 14 Order 5-25. 15 Dated this 8th day of December 2025. 16 Ravi Subramanian Clerk 17 /s/Natalie Wood 18 Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 1 In addition, a federal district court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] . . . jurisdiction[] and 23 agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Under this authority, a court may order injunctive relief prohibiting the government from transferring a petitioner out of the district while habeas corpus proceedings are 24 ongoing. See Oliveros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07117-BLF, 2025 WL 2677125, at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025).