Daoud Mehrabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA || DAOUD MEHRABI, Case No. 2:25-cv-02227-DGE-TLF Petitioner, V. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 8 SCHEDULE AND GIVING NOTICE PAMELA BONDI, ET AL, OF RIGHT TO CONSENT Respondents.

11 Petitioner, by counsel, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus.

12 || Dkt. 6.

13 1. The Court retains the discretion to determine when an answer or response to a || § 2241 habeas petition is due. See, e.g., Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 15 Cir. 1985) (pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to || fix a time to file an answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A || court considering a habeas corpus petition must “forthwith award the writ or issue an || order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added). The Court examines the allegations and || circumstances of each case in determining the due date of a response.

21 2. As to the claims asserted here, the Court finds there is a basis for an || expedited briefing schedule.

1 Petitioner states he entered the United States on December 19, 2024, was || detained by Immigration and Customers Enforcement (“ICE”), for one month and || subsequently released on or about January 21, 2025. Dkt. 6 at 2. On February 5, 2025, || petitioner alleges, he was again detained and remains in ICE custody at the Immigration || Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. /d. On April 16, 2025, an immigration judge issued a final deportation order. /d.

7 Petitioner argues his constitutional right to due process has been violated. /d.

8 || Petitioner asks the Court to order his immediate release from custody and to issue an || order that respondents may not remove or seek to remove Petitioner to a third country || (other than France) without reopening removal proceedings. /d. at 18.

11 Although there is some complexity of legal issues, the Court is concerned with || the need for prompt determination of the appropriate due process analysis and habeas || corpus process. The Court concludes that expedited briefing is merited.

14 4. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Respondents shall file a response to the || habeas petition by November 19, 2025. Any reply petitioner wishes to file shall be due ||on November 21, 2025, and the Clerk shall note the matter for November 21, 2025, as || ready for the Court’s consideration.

18 5. The Clerk is directed to serve the habeas corpus petition, Dkt. 6, upon 19 respondents and shall immediately email a copy of this order to || [email protected].

21 6. The parties have a right to have the matter heard by a United States District || Judge and may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 23 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). Consent is voluntary. Washington v. Kijakazi, || 72 F.4t8 1029, 1036-1040 (9th Cir. 2023). The Magistrate Judge will have jurisdiction || only if all parties consent. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-504 (9" Cir. 2017).

3 Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline consent by no later than November 17, 2025, by emailing Deputy Gayle Riekena at |jgayle [email protected].

6 If the parties unanimously consent, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will || preside over the entire case through judgment. If any party does not consent to the || jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, the case will remain assigned to Chief District || Judge David G. Estudillo. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 73. See || also General Order 5-25.

12 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.

14 « Hailes K Freche Theresa L. Fricke 16 United States Magistrate Judge