District Court, W.D. Washington, 2025

Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz

Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz
District Court, W.D. Washington · Decided November 10, 2025
Demar S. Rhome v. Eddie Reetz

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 DEMAR S. RHOME, CASE NO. 2:25-CV-2176-BJR-DWC 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE EDDIE REETZ, Respondent.

15 Petitioner Demar Rhome, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a proposed petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkts. 1, 4, 6. “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Petitioner is currently confined pursuant to a 2006 King County Superior Court judgment and sentence. See Dkt. 6 at 2.

22 Because Petitioner submitted a petition pursuant to § 2241, and not § 2254, the Court declines to serve the petition or to direct Respondent to file an answer. However, Petitioner is granted leave to correct this deficiency by submitting an amended petition pursuant to § 2254. The amended petition should be filed on the forms provided by the Clerk.

3 The Court also notes Petitioner has already challenged this conviction in this Court and any additional challenge may be successive. See Rhome v. Fraker, 2:09-cv-85-RSL (W.D.

5 Wash.). As such, Petitioner must also show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as successive.

7 In sum, Petitioner must file an amended petition, showing cause, on or before December 12, 2025. Failure to file an amended petition or otherwise respond to this Order by December 12, 2025, may result in the undersigned recommending the petition be dismissed without prejudice.

10 Petitioner’s Motion to Transfer to Another Facility or Release (Dkt. 7) and his Proposed Motion to Vacate (Dkt. 4-1) are stricken because Petitioner has not provided a viable petition.

12 The Clerk’s Office is directed provide Petitioner with a copy of this Order and Court’s standard 28 U.S.C. § 2254 forms.

14 Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.

A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.