Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

W.D. Washington

Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided October 28, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-02075·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA Y.M.M., Case No. 2:25-cv-02075 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., Respondents.

Having considered Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, the Court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The clerk is directed to immediately effectuate service of the habeas petition filed in this case upon Respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this order to usawaw.Habeas@usdoj.gov. 2. Respondents shall file their return to the petition no later than November 4, 2025. Respondents may file any arguments that seek to dismiss their petition along with the return but shall not separately note a motion to dismiss pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(d). l 3. Petitioner shall file any traverse and response to Respondents’ return no later than November 10, 2025. 4. The Clerk shall note this matter as ready for the Court’s consideration on November 10, 2025. 5. To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may issue an order to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). Accordingly, to allow Petitioner time to move for emergency relief in the event she is to be transferred or removed before this Court reviews his petition, the Court ORDERS that Respondents must provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this habeas action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer her from the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or to remove her from the United States. Dated this 28th day of October, 2025.

Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA Y.M.M., Case No. 2:25-cv-02075 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., Respondents.

Having considered Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, the Court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The clerk is directed to immediately effectuate service of the habeas petition filed in this case upon Respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this order to usawaw.Habeas@usdoj.gov. 2. Respondents shall file their return to the petition no later than November 4, 2025. Respondents may file any arguments that seek to dismiss their petition along with the return but shall not separately note a motion to dismiss pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(d). l 3. Petitioner shall file any traverse and response to Respondents’ return no later than November 10, 2025. 4. The Clerk shall note this matter as ready for the Court’s consideration on November 10, 2025. 5. To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may issue an order to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). Accordingly, to allow Petitioner time to move for emergency relief in the event she is to be transferred or removed before this Court reviews his petition, the Court ORDERS that Respondents must provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this habeas action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer her from the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or to remove her from the United States. Dated this 28th day of October, 2025.

Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge

Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al. (Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related