Nikita Prokopev v. Christopher Larose; Gregory Archambeault; Kristi Noem; and Pamela Bondi
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Bondi,
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the United States to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner filed a completed application attesting to an inability to pay the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must grant IFP status if the applicant demonstrates inability to pay. The order states the requisite facts are present. |
Order to Show Cause Issued“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 15, 2025.” | agree with court In habeas corpus proceedings, particularly those involving detained individuals, it is standard practice to require the custodian or respondent to respond to the petition to establish jurisdiction and the factual basis for detention. |
Stay of Removal Ordered“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court cites A.A.R.P.A. v. Trump and other district court orders to support the proposition that federal courts have the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. This aligns with the principle that courts must retain the ability to adjudicate the merits of a habeas petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for in forma pauperis status and relies on recent Supreme Court and district court authority to support the stay of removal to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NIKITA PROKOPEV, Case No.: 25-cv-3441-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; GREGORY PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ARCHAMBEAULT; KRISTI NOEM; 15 and PAMELA BONDI, (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 Respondents. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 HABEAS CORPUS; 18 (3) SETTING BRIEFING 19 SCHEDULE; AND 20 (4) STAYING REMOVAL OF 21 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 22 23 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 24 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Nikita Propokev’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 26 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner also 27 filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests he has no 28 means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 1 || Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for a Writ 2 ||of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 3 Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition 4 should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 15, 2025. Petitioner MAY 5 || FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by December 17, 2025. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 ||not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 8 || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 9 June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 10 || determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 11 || pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 12 ||ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 13 || restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 14 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 15 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 16 || further order of this Court’); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 17 federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 18 || the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 19 |] CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 20 || Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: December 10, 2025 23 “ur Sin, 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28