Naveen NAVEEN v. Gregory J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Naveen Naveen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and arguing he is entitled to bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court ordered the respondents to file a response to the petition by December 30, 2025, finding the claim sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to habeas petition“By December 30, 2025, respondent must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 4, which permits summary dismissal only if it plainly appears the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court found that because 'as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal,' and citing multiple recent district court cases finding similar claims likely to succeed, the petition had sufficient potential merit to require a response. This follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, as extended to § 2241 petitions by Rule 1(b). It relies on Neiss v. Bludworth for the proposition that a petition with potential merit cannot be summarily dismissed. The court then cites multiple recent district court decisions finding that similar claims challenging detention under § 1225(b)(2) in favor of § 1226(a) have a likelihood of success on the merits. This provides sufficient basis to conclude the petition is cognizable and warrants a response. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Naveen NAVEEN, Case No.: 25-cv-3728-AGS-AHG 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Gregory J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Naveen Naveen seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 10 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is 11 sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 12 the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly 13 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 14 relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to 15 any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary 16 dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 17 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is 18 not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 Naveen “is a citizen of India” who “entered the United States on April 18, 2023, 20 from Mexico without inspection.” (ECF 1, at 1, 4.) “He was apprehended by Customs and 21 Border Patrol (CBP) shortly thereafter and ultimately he was released on an Order of 22 Release on Recognizance (OREC).” (Id. at 1.) “On that same date, he was issued a Notice 23 to Appear (NTA) in Immigration Court, charging him as being an alien present in the 24 United States without admission or parole.” (Id.) Later, on “November 3, 2025, Petitioner 25 was arrested by ICE at his pre-scheduled ICE check-in.” (Id. at 2.) ICE has concluded that 26 petitioner is “subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and therefore ineligible 27 to be released on bond.” (Id.) Petitioner disagrees, arguing that he should be treated as 28 detained under “§ 1226(a), that allows for release on conditional parole or bond.” (Id.) 1 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally 2 ||identical cases across the country have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the 3 ||merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, F. Supp.3d.__, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 5 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners 6 || “have prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by 7 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 8 ||5:25-cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) 9 || (“[P]etitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), 10 |/not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv- 11 |/01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez 12 ||v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 13 }}2025) (“[T]he government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of 14 || statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”’). 15 By December 30, 2025, respondent must answer the petition. Any reply by 16 || petitioner must be filed by January 7, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 17 || petition on January 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 18 Dated: December 24, 2025 0 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28