Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM-JPD Document 55 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA,
Petitioner,

10

13

MINUTE ORDER

v.

11
12

Case No. C17-218-RSM-JPD

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15
16
17

The following minute order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable
James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

18
19

Petitioner’s response to the Government’s motion to dismiss, which is due Friday,
March 3, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., shall include a discussion of the following:

20

(1)

In the amended habeas petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive

21

relief, petitioner alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s procedural and substantive due

22

process clauses, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful seizure, and the Fifth

23

Amendment’s equal protection clause. Dkt. 41 at 22-41. As relief, he primarily seeks

24

immediate release, declaratory judgment, and an injunction prohibiting the Government from

25

re-arresting or detaining him on the basis of the conduct described in the petition. Dkt. 41 at

26

27.

MINUTE ORDER - 1

 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM-JPD Document 55 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2

1

However, the amended petition does not assert which form(s) of relief are appropriate

2

for which alleged constitutional violations. In responding to the Government’s motion to

3

dismiss, petitioner should cite any habeas cases that grant the particular relief requested for the

4

constitutional violations petitioner alleges. For example, petitioner should cite any habeas

5

cases that grant release based on a Fourth Amendment violation related to arrest.

6

(2)

What authorities support the proposition that a habeas case seeking release as

7

one form of relief can proceed on a parallel track with removal proceedings, as opposed to

8

being deemed inextricably intertwined with the removal proceedings?

9

(3)

The Government’s motion to dismiss relies heavily on J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837

10

F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016), in arguing that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) preclude this

11

Court’s jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims. Petitioner’s brief regarding jurisdiction, Dkt. 46,

12

discussed J.E.F.M. only briefly and primarily in a footnote. Petitioner’s response should

13

provide a more thorough discussion of J.E.F.M.

14
15
16

(4)

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this minute order to counsel for the

parties and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.
DATED this 28th day of February, 2017.

17
William M. McCool
Clerk of the Court

18
19

s/ Tim Farrell
Deputy Clerk

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MINUTE ORDER - 2