Full Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ALEXANDER DAVID DE LA OSSA No. 2:26-CV-03905-SAB 10 CANATE, 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 v. FOR TEMPORARY 13 FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR, RESTRAINING ORDER 14 Northwest Immigration and Customs 15 Enforcement Processing Center; et al.,1 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 19 ECF No. 2. Petitioner is representing himself in the matter. Respondents have not 20 filed a notice of appearance. 21 22 1 Petitioner names several Respondents. The proper respondent for a § 2241 23 petition is the person who has custody over the petitioner. See Rumsfeld v. 24 Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243). Because 25 Petitioner is currently detained at the Northwest Immigration Processing Center, 26 the proper respondent for this action is the individual in charge of that facility. 27 Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to name Bruce Scott, Warden of the 28 Northwest Immigration Processing Center, as a Respondent in this action. 1 Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela and Colombia who entered the United 2 States on July 19, 2023. It does not appear that Petitioner was detained for any 3 length of time upon encountering immigration officials and he was issued with a 4 Notice to Appear and released. Petitioner has resided in the United States since 5 then, and his removal proceedings remain pending. He indicates that he was 6 detained by ICE on October 1, 2026, without prior notice or an opportunity to be 7 heard. 8 Petitioner requests the Court enter a temporary restraining order that: (1) 9 orders his immediate release from custody or a bond hearing within seven days; (2) 10 prohibits Respondents from transferring him outside of the district while his habeas 11 petition is pending; and (3) prohibits Respondents from removing him from the 12 United States while his habeas petition is pending. 13 Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are extraordinary 14 and drastic remedies that “should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear 15 showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 16 972 (1997). The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status 17 quo before a hearing on the merits can be held. Granny Goode Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. 18 Of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). To successfully 19 move for a temporary restraining order, the moving party must establish: (1) the 20 likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits, (2) the movant is likely to 21 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, (3) the balance of 22 equities tips in the movant’s favor, and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. 23 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24-25 (2008). 24 The Court finds it unnecessary to reach the merits of Petitioner’s habeas 25 petition because the requested relief is either inappropriate at this stage, 26 unnecessary, or the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. 27 The first form of relief requested, his immediate release from custody, is 28 inappropriate at this stage of the habeas proceedings. As Petitioner is currently in 1 custody, ordering his immediate release would be an affirmative act that changes 2 the status quo. These types of requests are particularly disfavored. Anderson v. 3 United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1979). Granting this specific relief 4 before Respondents have an opportunity to be heard is unwarranted. 5 Turning to Petitioner’s request to enjoin Respondents from transferring him 6 out of the district, Petitioner indicates that he had an immigration hearing set for 7 October 13, 2026, in Miami, Florida, and any transfer out of the Western District 8 of Washington would negatively impact his ability to participate in the habeas 9 proceedings. As this Motion was filed on October 14, 2026, the Court is unclear as 10 to whether Petitioner was transferred out of the district or if there is any imminent 11 risk of future transfers. Jurisdiction over a habeas petition attaches at the time the 12 petition is filed and is not destroyed if the petitioner is transferred at a later stage, 13 so there is no risk of this Court losing jurisdiction due to a transfer. Francis v. 14 Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1989). The risk of harm is too remote to warrant 15 injunctive relief as to this request. 16 Regarding Petitioner’s final request to enjoin Respondents from removing 17 him from the United States while his habeas petition is pending, the Court lacks 18 jurisdiction to grant this specific request. Although it does not appear that there is a 19 final order of removal against Petitioner at this time, if such an order is entered 20 against Petitioner, the Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the timing and 21 execution of valid final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); Rauda v. Jennings, 22 55 F.4th 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2022). 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 2, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 5|| file this Order and provide copies to pro se Petitioner and counsel once a Notice of Appearance has been entered for Respondents. DATED this 16th day of October 2026. 8 ~ 10 12 Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER