Opinion
CR22-001 TL
04-12-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SHABNAM DAWN PILISUK, Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF DETENTION ORDER
Tana Lin, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Review of Detention Order (Dkt. No. 35). Defendant asks the Court for a de novo review, to set a detention hearing, and to allow briefing to be submitted prior to the hearing. Id. at 2. However, the motion is where any grounds for relief should be set forth. As a general rule, facts or arguments must be contained in the moving papers and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming district court after it declined to consider an argument raised for the first time in reply)). See also United States of America v. Barnes, No. CR18-5141, 2019 WL 2515317, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2019), aff'd on other grounds, No. 20-30059, 2021 WL 4938126 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2021). Stating the grounds in the moving papers provides the non-moving party an opportunity to respond to arguments raised and prevents sandbagging. See Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Cos., LLC, 999 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1227 (W.D. Wash. 2014). It also provides the Court with the information needed to determine whether a hearing is appropriate and, if so, the length of time that might be appropriate.
As pled, Defendant's motion provides insufficient grounds to grant any relief. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.