Volodymyr Litvinov v. Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — However, Petitioner alleges that he maintained throughout removal 1 proceedings
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition challenging the petitioner's detention by ICE, finding that the petitioner's reliance on *Zadvydas* was inapplicable because removal proceedings were still pending, and that he did not fit into the specific bond-eligible class or mandatory detention categories cited by the parties. The court ordered the petitioner to submit supplemental briefing explaining the proper legal basis for relief and providing specific factual details regarding his parole and a recent bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring supplemental briefing from Petitioner and Respondents“the Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit supplemental briefing explaining the proper basis for relief, specifying what analysis the Court should apply in this case, on or before February 24, 2026.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner's primary legal theory (*Zadvydas*) was factually inapplicable because the removal order had not yet become final due to the pending appeal. By ordering supplemental briefing rather than dismissing the petition outright, the court allows the petitioner to identify alternative legal theories (such as due process or statutory arguments regarding parole revocation) that may be viable given the unique factual circumstances of his parole status and dual citizenship claims. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately applies the *Zadvydas* framework to the facts (pending appeal means removal is not yet final, so the *Zadvydas* clock has not started or the presumption of reasonableness has not been triggered in the manner argued). It correctly distinguishes the petitioner from the class in *Maldonado Bautista* and the statutory category in *Cruz-Flores*. The decision to order supplemental briefing is a standard and appropriate judicial management tool when the legal theories presented do not match the factual record or are inapplicable, allowing the petitioner to refine their claims.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VOLODYMYR LITVINOV Case No.: 25-CV-3393 JLS (AHG)
12 Petitioner, ORDER REQURING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 WARDEN OTAY MESA DETENTION (ECF No. 12) CENTER, et al. 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Volodymyr Litvinov’s First Amended Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 12). Also before the 20 Court are Respondents’ Return to Amended Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 18) and 21 Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 21). 22 Petitioner alleges that he has been detained by the United States Department of 23 Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division at the Otay Mesa 24 Detention Center since May 30, 2025. Pet. at 2; Ret. at 1. On April 17, 2022, Petitioner 25 was granted parole, which was valid until April 15, 2023. Ret. at 1. DHS initiated removal 26 proceedings pursuant to a Notice to Appear at the time it detained Petitioner. Pet. at 4. On 27 October 17, 2024, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed to Ukraine. Pet. at 4– 28 5; Ret. at 2. However, Petitioner alleges that he maintained throughout removal 1 proceedings that he is not a citizen of Ukraine, as he renounced his citizenship in 2019. 2 Pet. at 5. Petitioner further submits that he is a citizen of the Russian Federation and was 3 granted withholding of removal to Russia. Id. Petitioner appealed the Immigration Judge’s 4 decision, and his appeal remains pending. Id. He has submitted multiple requests to ICE 5 for bond and humanitarian parole to no avail.2 Id. at 5–6. 6 Petitioner alleges this continued detention, now exceeding 180 days, violates 7 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id. at 9–12. Because removal proceedings remain 8 ongoing pending Petitioner’s appeal, the analysis under Zadvydas v. Davis does not apply. 9 See 533 U.S. at 689. Nor is Petitioner a Member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 10 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 11 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), contrary to what Petitioner argues in his Traverse, 12 see generally Traverse, since Petitioner was “apprehended upon arrival.” See Ret., Ex. A 13 at 2. Petitioner likewise is not lawfully subject to mandatory detention under § 1225, 14 contrary to what Respondents argue, see generally Return, since he is not an applicant for 15 admission. See Cruz-Flores v. Noem, No. 25-CV-3263 JLS (VET), 2025 WL 3526830, at 16 *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025). 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 1 Respondents submit that Petitioner is a citizen of both Ukraine and Russia, as he has not offered proof 27 of his renunciation of Ukrainian citizenship. Ret. at 1 n.2. 28 2 Respondents submit that Petitioner has twice withdrawn requests for bond and a third request remains 1 Because the Court cannot grant relief on the grounds advanced by the Petitioner— 2 || or deny it based on the grounds advanced by Respondents—the Court ORDERS Petitioner 3 ||to submit supplemental briefing explaining the proper basis for relief, specifying what 4 ||analysis the Court should apply in this case, on or before February 24, 2026. Petitioner 5 || must include sufficient facts as to the circumstances of the granting and revocation of his 6 || parole. Petitioner must also include an update as to the outcome of the bond hearing that 7 || was apparently scheduled for January 26, 2026. See Ret. 2. Respondents SHALL 8 || RESPOND to Petitioner’s briefing on or before March 10, 2026. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 3, 2026 . tt f Le 11 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28