Napoleon Andres Magana v. Kristi Noem et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NAPOLEON ANDRES MAGANA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02100 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 12 v. MEET AND CONFER AND GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF 13 KRISTI NOEM et al., PENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 14 Defendants. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 16 Plaintiff Napoleon Andreas Magana filed a complaint which, among other things, seeks a writ of habeas corpus.1 (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) wherein Plaintiff seeks to prevent his transfer outside the jurisdiction of the Western District of Washington and requiring that Defendants allow access to counsel while in Defendants’ custody. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.)

1 The five causes of action asserted in the complaint do not formally identify a claim under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 16–20.) However, the complaint is titled “Complaint for Injunctive Relief” and asserts the Court has federal question jurisdiction based in part on 28 23 U.S.C. § 2241 (federal habeas statute). (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also seeks release from alleged unlawful detention. (Id. at 21.)

1 Plaintiff was taken into ICE custody in Oregon on October 15, 2025. (Dkt. No. 1 at 13.)

2 Plaintiff argues a temporary restraining order is necessary because in recent months, rapid transfers outside Oregon, including removals, have occurred before detained individuals have had the opportunity to communicate with or obtain counsel. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has been represented by counsel since February 6, 2025. (Dkt. No. 2-2 at 2.) Plaintiff was taken from Oregon to Tacoma, Washington after his detention on October 15, 2025. (Dkt. No. 2-3 at 3.)

7 Plaintiff has not served the complaint or summons on Defendants as the complaint and motion for TRO were filed shortly after 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 26, 2025. Thus, Defendants have not entered an appearance nor responded to Plaintiff’s motion. The Court may grant a TRO to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”).

13 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED 15 pending Defendants’ response.

16 2. Defendants ARE PROHIBITED from removing Plaintiff from this jurisdiction— 17 i.e., the Western District of Washington—without further order from this Court.

18 3. Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL immediately serve process and a copy of this Order on 19 Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL immediately contact Defendants’ counsel 20 to provide a copy of this Order and meet and confer on (1) a briefing schedule for 21 the motion for TRO and (2) whether the government will agree to a stipulated 22 order to not remove Petitioner from the United States and to not transfer 23 Petitioner to another facility during the pendency of this action.

1 4. If the Parties can agree on a briefing schedule, they SHALL file a stipulated 2 proposed briefing schedule with the Court, along with any other stipulations the 3 Parties may agree on for the pendency of this case. If the Parties cannot reach 4 agreement on a briefing schedule, then Defendants SHALL respond to the TRO 5 on the schedule set by Local Civil Rule 65 once service is accomplished.

6 5. The Parties SHALL contact the courtroom deputy by email if they wish to 7 schedule oral argument on the motion for a temporary restraining order.

9 Dated this 26th day of October, 2025.

A David G. Estudillo 12 United States District Judge