Armen YERITSYAN v. Christopher LaROSE, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court screened a habeas petition challenging the petitioner's post-removal immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court denied summary dismissal, finding the claim potentially meritorious, and ordered the respondents to file an answer by January 6, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the habeas petition“This claim potentially has merit, and it is neither so frivolous nor so incredible as to justify summary dismissal. The government must respond.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening standard for habeas petitions, which requires only that the claim be sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. The petitioner alleged detention beyond the 90-day removal period and asserted that removal is not reasonably foreseeable, which aligns with the legal framework established in Zadvydas v. Davis. Because the petition raised a colorable claim under the statute and case law, the court was correct to deny summary dismissal and require a response. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable screening standard for habeas petitions and applies it to the facts recited. It cites the correct statutory provisions and the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Zadvydas) regarding the reasonableness of post-removal detention. The conclusion that the claim is not frivolous and warrants a response is supported by the petitioner's allegation that removal is not reasonably foreseeable, which is the core legal test for challenging such detention. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a screening order.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Armen YERITSYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-3760-AGS-BLM 4 Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION AND REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher LaROSE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Armen Yeritsyan 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 court to apply 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 Since “August 19, 2025,” petitioner, an “Armenian man” claims to have been under 20 a final order of removal and was also “granted withholding of removal status as to Armenia 21 but denied” “as to Russia.” (ECF 1, at 1, 5.) He’s been held in post-final-removal-order 22 custody for longer than the 90-day standard removal period, although he’s still well within 23 the presumptively reasonable 6-month detention authorized by the post-removal-period 24 statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) (“[W]hen an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney 25 General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days[.]”); 26 § 1231(a)(6) (authorizing detention beyond that period for certain aliens); Zadvydas v. 27 Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (discussing “6-month presumption” of reasonable 28 detention for § 1231(a)(6)). He contends that since ICE has not removed him to Russia or | |/identified a third country to remove him to, there is “no significant likelihood of removal 2 ||in the reasonably foreseeable future.” (ECF 1, at 8); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. 3 || This claim potentially has merit, and it is neither so frivolous nor so incredible as to justify 4 ||summary dismissal. The government must respond. 5 By January 6, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Petitioner may reply by 6 || January 13, 2026. The Court will hold oral argument on January 20, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 7 ||Dated: December 26, 2025 9 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28