Lien Ngoc Do v. Bruce Scott, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 LIEN NGOC DO, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02187-RSL-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 MOTION REGARDING THIRD BRUCE SCOTT, et al., COUNTRY REMOVAL AND 13 FACILITY TRANSFER Respondents.

15 Petitioner Lien Ngoc Do, proceeding with counsel, initiated this action by filing a 28 16 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas Petition. Dkt. 1. On November 11, 2025, the parties submitted a Stipulated Motion Regarding Third Country Removal and Facility Transfer. Dkt. 7. In their Motion, the parties jointly requested an expedited briefing schedule on the Petition and indicated U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) has agreed not to remove Petitioner to any other country than Vietnam or transfer her to another immigration facility while this litigation is pending. Id. 22 Courts have discretion in setting the briefing schedule for a § 2241 habeas petition and consider the individual circumstances of each case when determining appropriate deadlines. See Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985). After reviewing the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Third Country Removal and Facility Transfer, the briefing schedule provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and conducting a preliminary review of the habeas Petition (Dkt.

4 1), the Court ORDERS as follows: 5 1) The expedited briefing schedule agreed upon by the parties is GRANTED as set forth below.

7 2) Respondents shall file a return to the Petition (Dkt. 1) no later than November 19, 2025. Any reply is due by November 21, 2025. The Clerk shall note the matter as ready for the Court’s consideration on November 21, 2025.

10 3) To preserve the opportunity to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction and, if so, to consider whether habeas relief is warranted, a court may issue an order to maintain the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it . . .

14 determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). This is particularly so when the order is necessary to prevent action that would otherwise destroy the court’s jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). Accordingly, to allow Petitioner time to move for emergency relief in the event she is to be transferred or removed before this Court reviews her Petition, the Court ORDERS that Respondents must provide Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel in this habeas action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the weekend) prior to any action to move or transfer her from the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or to remove her from the United States.

1 4) The parties have a right to consent to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Consent is voluntary. Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline consent by no later than November 19, 2025, by emailing Deputy Kelly Miller at [email protected]. If the parties consent, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will preside over the entire case through judgment. If the parties decline consent, the case will remain assigned to District Judge Lasnik.

7 5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

10 Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.

A 13 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge