Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

Page 1 –ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
M.L.G.G.; R.G.S., 	Civ. No. 6:25-cv-02012-AA
Petitioners, 	ORDER
v.
CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, Seattle Field Office
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Removal Operations
(“ICE/ERO”); TODD LYONS, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”); U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”);
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney
General of the United States,
Respondents.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
This habeas case comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, ECF No 1. As a preliminary matter, the Court GRANTS Petitioners’ request
to proceed under a pseudonym.
Petitioners M.L.G.G. and R.G.S. are farmworkers who were detained by ICE
officers on October 30, 2025, in Marion County, Oregon. Pet. ¶¶ 40, 41. Petitioners
allege that there was no lawful basis for their stop or detention. 	Id. at ¶ 42.
Petitioners allege that they were subjected to warrantless arrest and detention
Case 6:25-cv-02012-AA Document 2 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 –ORDER
because the ICE officers “determined based solely on Petitioners’ apparent race and
ethnicity that Petitioners were in the United States without status.” 	Id. at ¶ 48.
Petitioners allege that that no individualized assessment was made as to whether
Petitioners were a flight risk or a danger to the community and that the ICE officers
who detained Petitioners had no reasonable suspicion that any Petitioner was either
a flight risk or unlawfully present in the United States. Id. at ¶¶ 46-47, 49.
Petitioners asks the Court to, among other things, (a) assume jurisdiction over
this matter; (b) order Respondents to appear before this Court and show cause why
the Petition should not be granted within three days; (c) declare that Petitioners’ stop
without reasonable suspicion and arrest without probable cause violate the APA, the
INA, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Nava Broadcast Policy;
(d) issue a writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to release Petitioner; (e) issue
an order prohibiting Respondents from transferring Petitioner from the District of
Oregon without the Court’s approval; and (f) grant such further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
Upon review of the Petition, the Court ORDERS:
1. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of the Petition, ECF No. 1, upon
Respondents and the U.S Attorney for the District of Oregon, Scott Bradford
(Scott.Bradford@usdoj.gov).
2. 	Respondents shall, no later than November 3, 2025, at noon Pacific Standard
Time, answer or respond to the Petition.
Case 6:25-cv-02012-AA Document 2 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 –ORDER
3. 	Although a United States District Court generally lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to review orders of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (g), it does
generally have jurisdiction over habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); see
also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, §
9, cl. 2 and stating that “absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains
available to every individual detained by the United States.”). 	Moreover, “‘a
federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction,’”
including its own subject-matter jurisdiction. 	Brownback v. King¸ 592 U.S.
209, 218-19 (2021) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2022)).
To give this Court the opportunity to determine whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction, and if so to consider the validity of the habeas petition, a court
may order respondents to preserve the status quo. 	See United Mine Workers
of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (“[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to
preserve existing conditions while it . . . determine[s] its own authority to grant
injunctive relief,” unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). 	Such an
order remains valid unless and until it is overturned, even when the issuing
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the underlying action’s
merits. See id. at 294-95. This principle applies with even greater force where
the action the court enjoins would otherwise destroy its jurisdiction or moot
the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906).
4. 	Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, Petitioners shall not be moved outside
of the District of Oregon without first providing advance notice of the intended
Case 6:25-cv-02012-AA Document 2 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 –ORDER
move. Such notice must be filed in writing and on the docket in this proceeding
and must state the reason that the Respondents believe that such a move is
necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. 	Once
that notice has been filed on the docket, the Petitioners shall not be moved out
of the District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of the docketing.
If the 48-hour period would end on a weekend or legal holiday, the period
continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a weekend or
legal holiday. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2)(C). 	This period may be shortened or
extended as appropriate by further Court order.
5. 	If the Respondents have already moved Petitioner outside of this District,
Respondents are ordered to notify the Court within two hours of being
served with this Order. 	Such notice must be filed in writing and on the
docket in this proceeding. 	In addition, Respondents are further ordered to
state in any such notice the exact date and time that Petitioner left the District
of Oregon and the reason why Respondents believed that such a move was
immediately necessary.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this 	day of October 2025.
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge
30th
/s/Ann Aiken
Case 6:25-cv-02012-AA Document 2 Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 4