Merven Tooy v. United States of America, et al.

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Merven Tooy, Case No. 2:25-cv-02286-CDS-BNW 5 Petitioner Order Granting the Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration, Lifting the Court’s v. Stay, Denying the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ, and Unsealing the Ex Parte Hearing United States of America, et al., 8 Respondents [ECF Nos. 4, 28] 10 On January 16, 2026, I held a hearing on the respondents’ emergency motion for reconsideration.1 See Mot., ECF No. 28; Resp., ECF No. 31. During the hearing, the respondents informed the court that Merven Tooy was removed pursuant to the itinerary that was provided to the court.2 See Itinerary, Resp’ts’ Ex. A, ECF No. 28-1.

14 Having considered the motion, I find reconsideration is warranted because of newly discovered evidence. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law). In the hours following the motion for reconsideration, the respondents learned Tooy’s removal had become reasonably foreseeable. Indeed, it was scheduled in just a matter of days.

21 Accordingly, because Tooy’s removal became reasonably foreseeable after I granted in part his petition for writ of habeas corpus, I grant the motion for reconsideration and deny Tooy’s petition.

25 1 I incorporate the transcript of the hearing as well as the transcript from the now unsealed proceeding with the respondents on January 15, 2026, into this order.

26 2 A redacted version of this itinerary was attached to the respondent’s motion. Ex. A, ECF No. 28-1. The respondents provided an unredacted version of the itinerary to the court.

1 Conclusion 2 IT IS ORDERED that the respondents’ emergency motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tooy’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 4] DENIED. The court’s prior order granting the petition [ECF No. 30] is now rescinded and 6} the previously entered stay is lifted.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the January 15, 2026 hearing with the respondents [ECF No. 33] is now unsealed.

9 I kindly instruct the Clerk of Court to close this mat rt) 10 Dated: January 21, 2026 /, / B Uni Prates District Judge 14 [