Singh v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

Filing 49

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendation. The Government's request to transfer the petition is DENIED. The Government's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 6 ) is GRANTED. Petitioner's federal habeas petition (Dkt. 1 ) is DENIED. Petitioner's motion to stay removal (Dkt. 41 ) is DENIED. Petitioner's "motion request re: case transfer to Georgia" (Dkt. 37 ) is DENIED as moot. The action is dismissed. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)(MJV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 6 HARBANS SINGH, 7 8 9 10 11 12 Case No. 2:24-cv-00705-RSL-TLF Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent. The Court, having reviewed the report and recommendation, the petition for writ 13 of federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241, and the remaining record, 14 hereby finds and ORDERS: 15 (1) The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. 16 (2) The Government’s request to transfer the petition is DENIED. The Government’s 17 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (Dkt. 18 1) is DENIED. Petitioner’s motion to stay removal (Dkt. 41) is DENIED. 19 Petitioner’s “motion request re: case transfer to Georgia” (Dkt. 37) is DENIED as 20 moot. The action is dismissed. 21 22 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke and to any other party that has appeared in this action. 23 24 25 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1 1 Dated this 7th day of March, 2025. 2 3 4 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?