Vlasov v. Garland

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DMITRY VLASOV, Case No.: 25-cv-01342-AJB-MSB Petitioner, 12 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO v. PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING [13] SCHEDULE PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the [14] United States, et al., (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondents. [17] Before the Court is Petitioner Dmitry Vlasov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [18] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) On May 23, 2025, Petitioner [19] filed the instant motion against the U.S. Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, [20] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and the San Luis Regional Detention [21] facility. 1 (Id.) This order follows. [24] 1 Petitioner filed his petition against former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, former Secretary of 25 Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, ICE, and San Luis Regional Detention Center. (See Doc. No. 1.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the updated caption reflects that Pam Bondi now holds the position 26 of Attorney General of the United States and Kristi Noem is the Secretary of Homeland Security. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e have an obligation 27 where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026 , 1027 n.1 (9th [28] 1 “The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 2 (‘Habeas Rules’) may be applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .” 3 See Webb v. Noonan, No. 3:18-cv-01551-GPC-NLS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133020 , *24 *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2018); see Habeas Rule 1(b). Under Habeas Rule 4, the Court “must 5 promptly examine” the petition. “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 6 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 7 dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the prisoner.” See Habeas Rule 4. 8 Here, Petitioner, a native and citizen of Russia, alleges that he has been detained at 9 San Luis Regional Detention Center in Arizona since an immigration judge’s final 10 decision, on November 26, 2024, granting Petitioner protection from removal. (Doc. No. 11 1 at 1–4.) Petitioner asserts that while the Department of Homeland Security filed an appeal 12 on December 20, 2024, it withdrew its appeal on January 14, 2025, making continued 13 detention unconstitutional pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. No. 14 1 at 2.) Petitioner requests that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus directing his 15 immediate release from ICE custody. (Id.) Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds 16 that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. See Hafeez v. Chertoff, No. 08cv2015 17 WQH (NLS), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89646 , *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008) (holding 18 summary dismissal of a § 2241 petition was unwarranted where petitioner was detained 19 beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period); see also Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. 20 Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the 21 allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 22 frivolous or false.”). 23 Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule: [28] 1 1. Respondent must file a response to the Petition on or before July 10, 2025. 2 Respondent must serve a copy of their response upon Petitioner concurrently with 3 the filing. 4 2. Petitioner may, but is not required, to file a traverse in support of his Petition no 5 later than August 8, 2025. 6 After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission and 7 || without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the Parties are notified 8 || otherwise. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 6, 2025 © VI Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 12 United States District Judge