Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.
This text of Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al. (Y.M.M. v. Cammilla 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.
Opinion
1 2 3
4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 Y.M.M., Case No. 2:25-cv-02075 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 9 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 10 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13
14 Having considered Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, the Court GRANTS the 15 motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 16 1. The clerk is directed to immediately effectuate service of the habeas petition filed in 17 this case upon Respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this order to 18 usawaw.Habeas@usdoj.gov. 19 2. Respondents shall file their return to the petition no later than November 4, 2025. 20 Respondents may file any arguments that seek to dismiss their petition along with the 21 return but shall not separately note a motion to dismiss pursuant to Local Civil Rule 22 7(d). 23 24 l 3. Petitioner shall file any traverse and response to Respondents’ return no later than 2 November 10, 2025. 3 4. The Clerk shall note this matter as ready for the Court’s consideration on November 4 10, 2025. 5 5. To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter 6 jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may 7 issue an order to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of 8 Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve 9 existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive 10 relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when 11 the order is necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s 12 jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). 13 Accordingly, to allow Petitioner time to move for emergency relief in the event she is 14 to be transferred or removed before this Court reviews his petition, the Court 15 ORDERS that Respondents must provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this 16 habeas action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into 17 the weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer her from the Northwest 18 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or to remove her from the 19 United States. 20 Dated this 28th day of October, 2025.
27 Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge 23 24
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Y.M.M. v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ymm-v-cammilla-wamsley-et-al-wawd-2025.