Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Mohammad Amin DAWLATZAI, Case No.: 26-cv-0850-AGS-DDL 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher J. LaROSE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Unrepresented petitioner Mohammad Dawlatzai seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 10 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.) At this stage, he 11 need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules 12 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing 13 summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 14 the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules 15 Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the 16 relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” 17 Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a 18 petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary 19 dismissal[.]” Id. 20 Dawlatzai’s petition is thin on details. He claims to have been in “immigration 21 custody” since “June/05/2025.” (ECF 1, at 4.) But he doesn’t explain the circumstances or 22 basis for that custody. (See generally id.) Instead, he alleges constitutional injury from 23 “[b]eing detained by ICE while applying for Aslyum” for “close to eight months with [a] 24 high possibility of further long extended detainment,” which he says violates his rights 25 under the “Fifth Amendment due process clause.” (Id. at 2, 6.) 26 Despite the lack of detail, this claim is not frivolous. After all, some courts have 27 concluded that prolonged detention can violate due process, even for arriving aliens subject 28 to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 1 ||499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across 2 ||the country in concluding that an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 3 || 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Thus, the 4 || government must answer. 5 By February 20, 2026, respondents must file their return. Petitioner may file any 6 || traverse by February 25, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on March 3, 2026, at 7 p.m. Respondents’ counsel must coordinate petitioner’s participation in oral argument 8 || by videoconference or, if that’s unavailable, by telephone. The government will ensure that 9 ||a member of the facility staff remains with petitioner during the proceeding to assist with 10 |} any unforeseen issues. 11 || Dated: February 13, 2026 13 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28