Nejad v. LaRose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition challenging the plaintiff's immigration detention and determined that the claims were sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response from the government. The court ordered the respondent to file a response by October 2, 2025, and vacated previously set deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to habeas petition“By October 2, 2025, respondent must respond to the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the petition be 'clearly not cognizable' or 'frivolous or incredible.' The court found that the petition raised cognizable due process claims regarding the revocation of release and lack of notice, citing specific regulatory provisions (8 C.F.R. § 241.13) that support the petitioner's arguments. Therefore, requiring a response is the appropriate procedural step. |
Vacatur of previously set deadlines“The previously set deadlines are vacated.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural adjustment to align the case schedule with the new requirement for a response. It follows logically from the decision to require a response. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions and applies it to the facts presented. It cites the relevant Ninth Circuit authority (Neiss) and the specific regulatory provisions (8 C.F.R. § 241.13) that support the petitioner's due process claims. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to justify the procedural decision to require a response rather than dismiss the petition.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Mohsen NEJAD, Case No.: 25-cv-2425-AGS-JLB 4 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher LAROSE, 7 Defendants. 8 9 Petitioner Mohsen Youseffi Nejad seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, the Court need not assess his 11 likelihood of success, but he has set out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a 12 response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 13 Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any 14 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use 15 of those Rules to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules 16 permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 17 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any 18 potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 Nejad was “ordered removed in 2011,” but his removal was “deferr[ed]” due to his 20 “conversion to Christianity,” which made it “more likely than not that he would be tortured 21 or killed if returned to Iran,” and he was released. (ECF 1, at 8.) Yet on June 24, 2025, he 22 returned to immigration custody. (Id.) Nejad claims the government revoked his release 23 even though there is no “reasonably foreseeable” likelihood of removal due to his inability 24 to return to Iran, and he was not given “notice” of the “reasons for revocation,” all in 25 violation of the Due Process Clause. (Id. at 3.) It appears from the face of the petition that 26 he may be entitled to relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) (“The Service may revoke an 27 alien’s release under this section and return the alien to custody if, on account of changed 28 circumstances, the Service determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien 1 be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.”); id. § 241.13G)(3) (‘Upon 2 || revocation, the alien will be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release.”). 3 The previously set deadlines are vacated. By October 2, 2025, respondent must 4 ||respond to the petition. Petitioner may, but is not required to, file a reply in support of the 5 || habeas petition by October 16, 2025. 6 Dated: September 23, 2025 g Hon. rew G. Schopler 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28