Sergio Arthur Gamez Zuniga v. Camilla Wamsley et al.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedDecember 18, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02527
StatusUnknown

This text of Sergio Arthur Gamez Zuniga v. Camilla Wamsley et al. (Sergio Arthur Gamez Zuniga v. Camilla Wamsley et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sergio Arthur Gamez Zuniga v. Camilla Wamsley et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SERGIO ARTHUR GAMEZ ZUNIGA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02527-LK 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 9 STIPULATION SETTING BRIEFING v. SCHEDULE 10 CAMILLA WAMSLEY et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order 15 Setting Briefing Schedule. Dkt. No. 7.1 16 1 In his initial petition, Gamez Zuniga named Rodney S. Scott as the “warden” of the Northwest ICE Processing 17 Center/Tacoma Northwest Detention Center (“NWIPC”). Dkt. No. 1. Because Rodney S. Scott is not the warden of the NWIPC, and is instead the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Court ordered Gamez Zuniga 18 to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to name Gamez Zuniga’s custodian. Dkt. No. 8. Gamez Zuniga subsequently filed an amended petition correctly naming Bruce Scott as his custodian, Dkt. No. 9, so the Court discharged its order to show cause, Dkt. No. 10. Because Gamez Zuniga’s amended petition does not 19 materially alter the substance of his habeas arguments, and Federal Respondents were already on notice that he intended to name Bruce Scott as the warden, see Dkt. No. 7 at 1 n.2, the amended petition does not moot Gamez 20 Zuniga and the Federal Respondents’ stipulation for a briefing schedule. See Oliver v. Alcoa, Inc., No. C16-0741JLR, 2016 WL 4734310, at *2 n.3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2016) (when an amended complaint is substantially identical to 21 the original complaint, an amended complaint will not moot a pending motion based on the original complaint). Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office states that it does not represent Bruce Scott, Dkt. No. 7 at 1 n.2, and Mr. Scott did not sign the “stipulation,” the Court finds that it is still appropriate to accept the stipulation because (1) the purpose 22 of naming the custodian is to effectuate injunctive relief where appropriate, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (the custodian has “the power to produce the body of [the petitioner] before the court or judge,” such that 23 “he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” (citation modified)); and (2) federal respondents often represent the warden’s interests, as they do in this case, see Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1196 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Even in cases where private contract wardens are named as respondents, the government can and has stepped 24 in to defend its interest in keeping petitioners detained.”). 1 According to the Stipulation, “Federal Respondents agree to not (1) remove Petitioner from 2 this Court’s jurisdiction or (2) transfer him from the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, 3 Washington, to any other facility while these proceedings are pending, unless transfer is necessary

4 for medical evaluation, treatment or release.” Id. at 2. Additionally, “the parties have agreed to a 5 briefing schedule on Petitioner’s habeas petition as follows: Federal Respondent’s Return shall be 6 due on December 30, 2025, and Petitioner’s Traverse shall be due on January 6, 2026.” Id. 7 Courts have discretion to consider the circumstances of each case in setting the briefing 8 schedules for habeas petitions. See Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985). 9 Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation and the balance of the record, and considering the specific 10 circumstances of this case, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion, Dkt. No. 7. Federal 11 Respondents’ response memorandum is due on December 30, 2025, and Petitioner’s response is 12 due on January 6, 2026. Federal Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from this Court’s

13 jurisdiction or transfer him from the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington, to 14 any other facility while these proceedings are pending, unless transfer is necessary for medical 15 evaluation, treatment, or release. 16 Dated this 18th day of December, 2025. 17 A 18 Lauren King United States District Judge 19

20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
John Wesley Clutchette v. Ruth Rushen
770 F.2d 1469 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
John Doe v. Merrick Garland
109 F.4th 1188 (Ninth Circuit, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sergio Arthur Gamez Zuniga v. Camilla Wamsley et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sergio-arthur-gamez-zuniga-v-camilla-wamsley-et-al-wawd-2025.