Roa Mendoza v. Mullin et al
| Joel Enrique Roa Mendoza |
| MarkWayne Mullin, David Venturella, Julio Hernandez and Bruce Scott |
| 2:2026cv03497 |
| September 18, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER re #2 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Geoffrey Doolittle for Joel Enrique Roa Mendoza, by Clerk Joshua C. Lewis. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(PS)
|
| Filing 2 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Geoffrey Doolittle FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Petitioner Joel Enrique Roa Mendoza (Fee Paid) Receipt No. AWAWDC-9994097 (Cornell, Benjamin) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 USC 2241 (Receipt # AWAWDC-9994088) filed by Joel Enrique Roa Mendoza. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Warrant for Arrest of Alien, 9-1-2026)(Cornell, Benjamin) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
