Vlasov v. Garland
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2012) (“[W]e have an obligation 27
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which the petitioner alleged that his continued detention at an immigration facility was unconstitutional after the government withdrew its appeal of an immigration judge's order granting him protection from removal. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the respondents to file a response by July 10, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court declined to dismiss the § 2241 petition summarily and ordered the respondents to file a response to the petition.“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the allegations be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The petitioner's allegations—that he was detained after a final order granting protection and that the government withdrew its appeal—present a plausible claim under Zadvydas v. Davis that his detention has become unreasonable. Because the petition is not patently frivolous, the court was required to allow the case to proceed to briefing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition and applies it to the facts alleged. The court properly noted that the petitioner's claim under Zadvydas is not patently frivolous, thereby justifying the requirement for the government to respond. The order is brief but contains all necessary elements for a scheduling order in a habeas case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 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. 16 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. 22 23 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, *2- 4 *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: 24 25 26 27 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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28