Ivan Chekhovskii v. Bruce Scott, et al.

Chekhovskii · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · December 17, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-02550-JLR-TLF

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issues an order governing the response schedule for Ivan Chekhovskii’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Respondents must file a return by December 30, 2025, and the petitioner’s traverse is due January 6, 2026. The order also requires notice before any transfer or removal, restricts transfer outside the district while the case is pending, and addresses consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. A federal court has discretion to determine when a return or other response to a § 2241 habeas petition is due, based on the allegations and circumstances of the particular case.
  2. Respondents must provide petitioner and counsel advance notice before moving or transferring petitioner from the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center or removing him from the United States, and respondents may not transfer petitioner to custody in a facility outside the Western District of Washington while the case is pending.
  3. A magistrate judge may exercise jurisdiction over the entire case through judgment only if all parties voluntarily consent; absent unanimous consent, the case remains assigned to the district judge.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court may exercise discretion to set the deadline for respondents' return to a § 2241 habeas petition.
  2. Whether the court should require respondents to provide advance notice of any transfer or removal of petitioner and temporarily prohibit transfer to a facility outside the Western District of Washington.
  3. Whether the parties may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (3)

  • Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029, 1036–1040 (9th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503–504 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…