Full Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 WILSON XAVIER APUGLLON- No. 2:26-CV-02161-SAB 10 CONYA, 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING 12 v. CONSTRUED MOTION TO 13 WARDEN, other NWIPC Warden/Facility RECONSIDER 14 Administrator; and CAMILLA 15 WAMSLEY, Field Office Director, Seattle 16 Field Office, US Immigration and Customs 17 Enforcement, 18 Respondents. 19 20 Before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ECF 21 No. 11. Petitioner is representing himself in the matter. Respondents are 22 represented by Peter H. Clark. The Motion was considered without oral argument. 23 On July 21, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 24 Corpus, finding that the Mathews factors weighed in his favor. The Court reasoned 25 that, even if there was a valid final order of removal against him, Petitioner’s 26 underlying re-detention was unlawful as Respondents failed to provide him with 27 any pre-deprivation process, and any later valid authority to detain him did not 28 resolve the underlying constitutional violation. 1 Respondents request the Court amend its judgment to deny Petitioner’s 2 Habeas Petition. The Court construes this request as a Motion to Reconsider. 3 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not appropriate if used to 4 revisit issues already addressed by the Court or to advance new arguments that 5 could have been raised in prior briefing. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 6 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. 7 Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion for reconsideration 8 should be granted when a district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered 9 evidence, (2) committed clear error, or (3) if there is an intervening change in the 10 controlling law. Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. 11 Respondents provide no new evidence and cite no intervening change in 12 law. They instead assert the Court committed manifest error in granting 13 Petitioner’s requested relief, as he was subject to the 90-day mandatory detention 14 period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), and other courts have denied habeas petitions 15 in similar circumstances. The sole binding authority cited by Respondents does not 16 involve a challenge to the underlying constitutionality of the petitioners’ re- 17 detention. Khotesouvan v. Morones, 386 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 2004). In 18 Khotesouvan, the petitioners requested release from custody as there was no 19 foreseeable likelihood of removal during the mandatory 90-day removal period 20 under § 1231(a)(2). Id. at 1299. The court rejected this request, finding the 90-day 21 mandatory detention period was presumptively reasonable. Id. at 1301. Although 22 Respondents assert this provides black-letter authority that any detention under § 23 1231(a)(2) is valid and any habeas petition filed by an individual subject to such 24 detention is moot, the Court reads this case to provide a narrower interpretation of 25 the statute that is not applicable here. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Respondent’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 5|| this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. DATED this 8th day of October 2026. 8 ~ 10 AV (ar 11 Stanley A. Bastian 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28