Ziganshin v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ denied — Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT 4 ||PREJUDICE.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Ilnar Ziganshin, a pro se detainee, filed a request to dismiss his own habeas corpus petition after the court ordered supplemental briefing. The court granted the request and dismissed the petition without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petitioner's request for dismissal of the Amended Petition is granted, and the petition is dismissed without prejudice.“Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for dismissal is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Amended Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows dismissal at the plaintiff's request by court order. The court noted that Respondents did not oppose the request and thus did not demonstrate prejudice, satisfying the standard that voluntary dismissal should be granted unless the defendant shows plain legal prejudice. The dismissal was properly designated as without prejudice, consistent with the rule and Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(2)) for voluntary dismissal in a habeas context, cites binding Ninth Circuit authority regarding the standard for granting such dismissal (absence of prejudice to the defendant), and notes that the respondents did not oppose the request. The conclusion follows logically from the cited authorities and the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ILNAR ZIGANSHIN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01096-RBM-SBC A# 249-138-246, 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION Petitioner, 13 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On April 28, 2025, Petitioner Ilnar Ziganshin (“Petitioner”), a detainee in the 20 custody of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Bureau of Immigration and 21 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and named DHS as the Respondent (“Original Petition”). 23 (Doc. 1.) On June 9, 2025, Petitioner filed an Emergency Verified Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Request for Temporary Restraining Order 25 (“Amended Petition”), which adds the Imperial Regional Detention Facility’s Warden, 26 Jeremy Casey, as a Respondent. (Doc. 4.) The same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for 27 Leave to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to Add Additional Respondent 28 (“Motion for Leave to Amend”). (Doc. 5.) The Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for 1 Leave to Amend and accepted Petitioner’s Amended Petition as properly filed. (Doc. 6.) 2 On July 9, 2025, Respondents DHS and Jeremy Casey (collectively, “Respondents”) 3 filed a Return in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Opposition”). (Doc. 4 6.) On July 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Notice to the Court Regarding 5 Petitioner’s Pro Se Status Request for Consideration and Motion to Expedite Consideration 6 of All Pending Motions and Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Case, which the Court construes 7 as Petitioner’s reply memorandum (“Reply”). (Doc. 10; see also Doc. 6 (permitting 8 Petitioner to file a reply to any opposition).) 9 On August 11, 2025, the Court ordered supplemental briefing from Petitioner and 10 Respondents regarding Petitioner’s Amended Petition and any parole proceedings 11 involving Petitioner. (Doc. 11.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed a document requesting 12 that the “District Court for the Southern District of California dismiss all my petitions and 13 declare this petitions [sic] to be invalid.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) 14 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied to habeas proceedings to the 15 extent such rules are not inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the Habeas Rules.” 16 Smith v. Allen, No. 1:23-cv-00480-ADA-HBK (HC), 2023 WL 5745898, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 17 Sept. 6, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1219176 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18 21, 2024). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that “an action may be 19 dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers 20 proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under 21 this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Id.; see also Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 22 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) normally is without prejudice, as 23 explicitly stated in that rule.”). 24 “Whether to grant voluntary dismissal under [Rule] 41(a)(2) is within the district 25 court’s discretion.” Smith, 2023 WL 5745898, at *1 (citing Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. 26 Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989)). “[V]oluntary dismissal under [Rule] 27 41(a)(2) should be granted unless a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal 28 prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Id. (citations omitted). 1 Here, Respondents have not filed an opposition to Petitioner’s request for dismissal 2 ||and, therefore, have not demonstrated prejudice. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for 3 || dismissal is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Amended Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT 4 ||PREJUDICE. See Smith, 2023 WL 5745898, at *2 (granting the petitioner’s unopposed 5 || motion to dismiss his petition). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||DATE: August 19, 2025 <ett Laerrnscdn, Wf otaryysD 9 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28