Uriel Mendoza Araiza v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 URIEL MENDOZA ARAIZA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02139-TL-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER ON EX PARTE MOTION 12 FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., AND ISSUE EXPEDITED 13 BRIEFING SCHEDULE Respondents. 14

15 Petitioner Uriel Mendoza Araiza has filed this counseled 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas 16 Petition, requesting that he be considered a member of the Bond Denial Class certified in 17 Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025), and that 18 Respondents be ordered to release him from detention unless he receives a new bond hearing 19 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the Court’s Order granting habeas relief. Dkt. 20 1. Along with the Petition, Petitioner requests an expedited briefing schedule, with a return from 21 Respondents due within seven (7) days, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and arguing that because he is a 22 member of the Bond Denial Class, “expeditious consideration is particularly appropriate here.” 23 Dkt. 2 at 2. 24 1 Courts have discretion in setting the briefing schedule for a § 2241 habeas petition and 2 consider the individual circumstances of each case when determining appropriate deadlines. See 3 Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, Petitioner alleges he was 4 apprehended on September 29, 2025, and placed in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

5 1229a by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Dkt. 1 at 2; Dkt. 4-1 at 5, Ex. A (DHS 6 Notice of Evidence). DHS charged Petitioner as being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 7 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as someone who entered the United States without inspection. Dkt. 1 at 2; Dkt. 8 4-2 at 2, Ex. B (Notice to Appear). On October 24, 2025, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied 9 Petitioner’s bond request based on lack of jurisdiction, finding that Petitioner is subject to 10 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and the Laken Riley Act (“LRA”), 8 U.S.C. 11 § 1226(c)(1)(E), based on Petitioner’s 2006 conviction for shoplifting in Monterey County, 12 California. Dkt. 1 at 3; Dkt. 4-3 at 2, Ex. C (IJ Order). An appeal from the IJ’s Order is currently 13 due by November 24, 2025. See Dkt. 4-3 at 3, Ex. C. 14 Petitioner now seeks an expedited briefing schedule of his habeas Petition based mainly

15 on his argument that the LRA contains no retroactivity language that would make it applicable to 16 Petitioner’s 2006 shoplifting offense. Dkt. 1 at 3–4; Dkt. 2 at 3–6. Further, Petitioner argues that, 17 should the Court find the LRA does not apply to his 2006 shoplifting offense, he should be 18 considered a member of the Bond Denial Class which would entitle him to consideration for 19 release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Dkt. 1 at 6; Dkt. 2 at 3. 20 After reviewing Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 2), the briefing 21 schedule provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and conducting a preliminary review of the habeas 22 Petition (Dkt. 1), the Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1) The Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED as set forth below.

24 1 2) Respondents shall file a return to the Petition (Dkt. 1) no later than November 17, 2 2025. Any reply is due by November 24, 2025. The Clerk shall note the matter as ready for the 3 Court’s consideration on November 24, 2025. 4 3) To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter

5 jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may issue an order 6 to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 7 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it . . . 8 determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is 9 frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is necessary to prevent action that would 10 otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 11 573 (1906). Accordingly, to allow Petitioner time to move for emergency relief in the event he is 12 to be transferred or removed before this Court reviews his Petition, the Court ORDERS that 13 Respondents must provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this habeas action at least 48 14 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the weekend) prior to any action to

15 move or transfer him from the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing 16 Center or to remove him from the United States. 17 4) The parties have a right to consent to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Consent 18 is voluntary. Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline 19 consent by no later than November 18, 2025, by emailing Deputy Kelly Miller at 20 kelly_miller@wawd.uscourts.gov. If the parties consent, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will 21 preside over the entire case through judgment. If the parties decline consent, the case will remain 22 assigned to District Judge Lin. 23

24 1 5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the 2 Honorable Tana Lin. 3 4 Dated this 6th day of November, 2025.

5 A 6 7 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24