Parviz v. Barron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MAHSA PARVIZ, 10 CASE NO. 2:23-CV-1407-JHC-DWC Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DENYING CUSTODIAL TRANSFER AND GRANTING 12 H. BARRON and C. PETERS, EXTENSION OF TIME 13 Respondents.

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Mahsa Parviz’s Motion for Custodial Transfer and Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse. Dkts. 44, 46. After consideration of the record, the Motion for Custodial Transfer (Dkt. 44) is denied and the Motion for Extension (Dkt. 46) is granted.

I. Custodial Transfer (Dkt. 44) In the Motion for Custodial Transfer (Dkt. 44), Petitioner requests the Court transfer her to California under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(b)(2). The authority to transfer or release a prisoner under Rule 23 pending habeas review appears to rest with the appellate court, not the district court. See United States v. Carreira, 2016 WL 1047995 (D. Haw. Mar. 10, 2016) (Rule 23 “facially applies only to motions for release filed after the district court has issued a decision on the merits of a habeas petition”). As this Court has not made a decision on the Petition and as there is no pending appeal, a transfer or release order under Rule 23 is not appropriate. Moreover, Petitioner has not demonstrated this is an extraordinary case involving special circumstances that would warrant involvement in Petitioner’s transfer. Therefore, the Motion for Custodial Transfer (Dkt. 44) is denied.

6 II. Extension of Time (Dkt. 46) 7 In the Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 46), Petitioner requests a 30-day extension of time to file her response to Respondent’s Answer. Petitioner also requests an additional copy of Respondent’s Answer and supporting exhibits. Dkt. 46. Petitioner does not state why she needs the extension of time, but Petitioner notes Respondent’s Answer was damaged and missing several pages. Id. After review of Petitioner’s Motion and the relevant record, the Motion for Extension (Dkt. 46) is granted.

13 III. Conclusion 14 For the above stated reasons, the Motion for Custodial Transfer (Dkt. 44) is denied. The Motion for an Extension of Time (Dkt. 46) is granted. Petitioner’s response to the Answer must be filed on or before April 29, 2024. Respondent’s optional reply is due on or before May 3, 2024.

17 The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner’s copies of Respondent’s Answer and Exhibits 18 (Dkts. 42, 43). The Clerk is also directed to re-note the Answer (Dkt. 42) for May 3, 2024.

19 Dated this 29th day of March, 2024.

A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge