1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9
10
11 IN RE: IMMIGRATION HABEAS GENERAL ORDER 08-26
PETITIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
12
13
14
15 This Order is adopted to set a case assignment and scheduling procedure specifically for
16 petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by persons in immigration
17 detention. This Order supersedes General Order 10-25, issued December 18, 2025, and continues
18 to modify the Court’s General Order No. 05-25, issued February 19, 2025.
19
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS:
20
1. General Objectives. It is the intent of the Court to facilitate the prompt adjudication
21
of § 2241 immigration habeas petitions. To meet this goal, the Court will, to the
22
greatest extent possible, assign such § 2241 habeas petitions to both District Judges
23
and Magistrate Judges. The public, the parties, and the Court are well served by
24
ORDER 08-26 / PAGE 1
1 expanding the pool of judges available to decide these cases. The Court will also
2 promptly enter a standard scheduling order after the petition is assigned to a judge.
3 2. Case Assignment. The Clerk shall randomly assign § 2241 immigration petitions to
4 either a Magistrate Judge or a District Judge. When a petition is filed using CM/ECF,
5 the filer will be asked to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. The United States
6 has already indicated its “general” consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in cases of
7 this nature, subject to reserved rights to withdraw the consent in a given case and to
8 withdraw the general consent no later than the filing of its Notice of Appearance
9 (Exhibit 1).
10 If the petitioner consents, the United States does not timely withdraw consent, and the
11 case is randomly assigned to a Magistrate Judge, the case shall remain assigned to the
12 Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the assignment pool includes both
13 Magistrate and District Judges, a case may still be assigned to a District Judge even if
14 the petitioner consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. If the petitioner declines to
15 consent or if the United States timely withdraws its consent, the case will be assigned
16 to a District Judge, without referral. The parties may also exercise their right to consent
17 to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge at a later stage of the case. A party who decides
18 to consent later may do so by communicating their decision to the Court, and the
19 District Judge may enter an order transferring the case to a Magistrate Judge upon
20 unanimous consent of the parties.
21 3. Paper Filings. A pro se petitioner that files their petition in hard copy will be sent a
22 hard copy scheduling order by the Clerk’s Office in accordance with Paragraph 4
23 below. The Clerk’s Office will serve the petition on the U.S. Attorney’s Office
24 pursuant to this General Order. If the petitioner indicates on the hard copy of the
ORDER 08-26 / PAGE 2
1 petition that they consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, then the case may
2 be assigned to either a Magistrate Judge or a District Judge. If the petitioner indicates
3 on the hard copy of the petition that they decline consent, or they do not indicate any
4 decision about consent, then the case will be assigned to a District Judge.
5 4. Case Scheduling. Upon assignment of a petition to a judge, the Clerk’s Office will
6 serve the petition on the U.S. Attorney’s Office (if not already accomplished) and the
7 Court will issue a standard scheduling order (Exhibit 2). Among other things, the
8 standard order provides that a return to the habeas petition will be due in 14 days and
9 a traverse may be filed within 5 days of the return. The petition will be noted for
10 consideration on the due date for the traverse. The order also sets forth a procedure
11 for the parties to seek to expedite or enlarge the standard briefing schedule and
12 requires notice to the petitioner before they are removed from the Western District of
13 Washington during the pendency of their habeas proceedings. The standard
14 scheduling order for cases filed by pro se petitioners will allow 14 days for the filing
15 of a traverse to account for mail delays. (Exhibit 3.)
16 5. Temporary Restraining Orders. The standard scheduling order is intended to
17 provide a prompt resolution to habeas petitions that should reduce the
18 contemporaneous filing of motions for temporary restraining orders seeking release
19 from custody or the relief that is otherwise requested by the habeas petition. Motions
20 for temporary restraining orders should be reserved for matters where the petitioner
21 alleges imminent, irreparable harm, such as imminent removal from the United
22 States. All motions for temporary restraining orders must meet the requirements of
23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.
24
ORDER 08-26 / PAGE 3
1 6. Future Modification. The Court reserves the right to modify this Order or to rescind
2 the Order entirely as the Court determines appropriate. This Order is effective
3 immediately and remains in force until modified or rescinded.
4 7. Dissemination of Order. The Clerk shall post a copy of this Order on the Court’s
5 website and shall distribute copies whenever and to whomever the Clerk deems
6 appropriate.
7
8
DATED this 7th day of July, 2026.
9
10
A
11
12 David G. Estudillo
Chief United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER 08-26 / PAGE 4
EXHIBIT 1
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Western District of Washington
Tacoma Office:
Please reply to: 700 Stewart Street, Ste 5220 l20l Pacific Ave., Ste 700
Rebecca S. Cohen Seattle, IryA 98 I 0 I - I 27 I Tacoma, l.l/A 98402-1305
Assistant United States Attolney Tel: (206) 553-7970 Tel: (253) 428-3800
Chief, Cittil Division Fax: (206) 55i-0582 Fax: (25j) 428-3826
Direct Line: (206) 553-6526 www. u s d oj. g ov /u s a o /w aw
December 16,2025
The Honorable David G. Estudillo
Chief District Judge
United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington
l7l7 Pacifrc Avenue
Tacoma, WA 98402
Sent Via Email
Re: General Consent to Disposition by Magistrate Judge in Immigration Habeas Cases
Dear Chief Judge Estudillo:
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington (USAO)
represents United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and ICE
employees named in their official capacity, in immigration-related habeas cases filed in
the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. 5 2241. Effective immediately, the
USAO hereby consents, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 636(c)(1), to the disposition by either a
United States Magistrate Judge or a United States District Judge (at the discretion of the
Court) in all such cases. In addition, the GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) has authorized the U.S.
Attorney's Office to consent to the same on behalf of GEO and the Facility Administrator
at the Northwest Immigration Processing Center (currently Bruce Scott) when the
Facility Administrator is named as a respondent in his official capacity in any
immigration-related habeas cases filed in the Western District of Washington under 28
u.s.c. 5 224r.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington reserves ICE
and GEO's right to withdraw consent in any individual case, and to withdraw this general
consent, at any time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
CHARLES NE,IL FLOYD
United States Attorney
4U6.Grnz,^-
REBECCA S. COHEN
Assistant United States Afforney
Chief, Civil Division
EXHIBIT 2
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
[Petitioner], Case No. [Case #]
8
Petitioner[s], SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING
9
RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD
10
NOT BE GRANTED
[Respondent],
11
Respondents.
12
13
14 I. ORDER
15 Petitioner(s) have filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
16 alleging that Petitioner(s) are in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
17 States. The Court has discretion to determine when a response to a § 2241 habeas petition is due.
18 See, e.g., Sect. 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas
19 corpus petition not covered by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–
20 75 (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to fix a time to file
21 an answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A court considering a habeas
22 corpus petition “shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
23 cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Court directs Respondents to
24 show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted and ORDERS:
SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED - 1
1 1. Respondents shall file a return to the habeas petition no later than [14 days from entry
2 of order]. The return shall be noted on the Court’s motion docket for the due date of
3 the Petitioner’s traverse – 5 days after the due date of the respondent’s return. Any
4 arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall be made in the return and not by
5 separate motion. The return shall be filed using the “Response to Habeas Petition”
6 CM/ECF filing event.
7 2. Any traverse by Petitioner(s) shall be filed no later than [5 days from due date for
8 return]. A traverse filed through CM/ECF shall be filed using the “Reply to
9 Response to Motion” filing event.
10 3. Respondents shall provide Petitioner(s) and Petitioner(s)’ counsel in this habeas
11 action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into a
12 weekend, holiday, or date the Court is closed) prior to any action to move or transfer
13 any Petitioner(s) from the Western District of Washington or to remove them from
14 the United States. Respondents shall also (1) file the notice of intent to transfer or
15 remove on the Court’s docket; and (2) file a notice on the docket if the transfer or
16 removal is completed.
17 4. The Clerk is directed to effectuate immediate service, if service has not already been
18 accomplished, of the habeas petition filed in this case upon Respondents by emailing
19 a copy of the habeas petition and this order to
20
[email protected].
21 5. Petitioner(s)’ counsel shall provide Petitioner(s)’ A-file number promptly to the U.S.
22 Attorney’s Office via email to
[email protected].
23 6. If either party seeks an expedited or enlarged briefing schedule, counsel for that party
24 shall contact the opposing counsel promptly to meet and confer. The parties shall then
SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED - 2
1 file a joint expedited motion, noted for the same day it is filed, that contains either an
2 agreed briefing schedule or the parties’ competing proposals for a briefing schedule.
3
4 Dated this ___ day of ______.
5
6 [Signature]
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED - 3
EXHIBIT 3
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
[Petitioner], Case No. [Case #]
8
Petitioner[s], SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING
9
RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD
10
NOT BE GRANTED
[Respondent],
11
(PRO SE PETITIONER)
Respondents.
12
13
14 I. ORDER
15 Pro se Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
16 alleging that Petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
17 The Court has discretion to determine when a response to a § 2241 habeas petition is due. See,
18 e.g., Sect. 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas
19 corpus petition not covered by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–
20 75 (9th Cir. 1985) (pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the federal court has discretion to fix a time to file
21 an answer beyond the time periods set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243). A court considering a habeas
22 corpus petition “shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
23 cause why the writ should not be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Court directs Respondents to
24 show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted and ORDERS:
SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (PRO SE PETITIONER) - 1
1 1. Respondents shall file a return to the habeas petition no later than [14 days from entry
2 of order]. The return shall be noted on the Court’s motion docket for the due date of
3 the Petitioner’s traverse – 14 days after the due date of the respondent’s return. Any
4 arguments that the petition should be dismissed shall be made in the return and not by
5 separate motion. The return shall be filed using the “Response to Habeas Petition”
6 CM/ECF filing event.
7 2. Any traverse by Petitioner shall be filed no later than [14 days from due date for
8 return].
9 3. Respondents shall provide Petitioner in this habeas action at least 7 days’ notice prior
10 to any action to move or transfer Petitioner from the Western District of Washington
11 or to remove them from the United States. Respondents shall also (1) file the notice of
12 intent to transfer or remove on the Court’s docket; and (2) file a notice on the docket
13 if the transfer or removal is completed.
14 4. The Clerk is directed to effectuate immediate service, if service has not already been
15 accomplished, of the habeas petition filed in this case upon Respondents by emailing
16 a copy of the habeas petition and this order to
17
[email protected].
18 5. If either party seeks an expedited or enlarged briefing schedule, counsel for that party
19 (or the party themselves, if unrepresented) shall contact the opposing counsel (or
20 party) promptly to meet and confer. The parties shall then file a joint expedited
21 motion, noted for the same day it is filed, that contains either an agreed briefing
22 schedule or the parties’ competing proposals for a briefing schedule.
23
24
SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (PRO SE PETITIONER) - 2
1 Dated this ___ day of ______.
2
3 [Signature]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SCHEDULING ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (PRO SE PETITIONER) - 3
