Andrei Bikmasov v. Otay Mesa Detention Center, Warden, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Sammartino 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Russian national detained by ICE, in which the government conceded that removal was not reasonably foreseeable. The court granted the petition in part and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, subject to conditions of supervision and specific procedural protections against re-detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting in part the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering immediate release from custody“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record because the government explicitly conceded that it was unable to establish a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, which is the standard for release under Zadvydas v. Davis. The court correctly relied on this concession and similar recent district court decisions to order release. |
Ordering procedural protections prior to any re-detention, including notice, a hearing, and a burden of proof on the government“The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of her release and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted. The Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” | agree with court The court applied the procedural safeguards established in Zadvydas v. Davis, which requires a hearing and places the burden on the government to show by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is warranted. The order correctly implements these requirements. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound because it correctly applies the standard from Zadvydas v. Davis to the facts presented. The government's concession that removal was not reasonably foreseeable triggered the right to release, and the court properly imposed the procedural safeguards required by Zadvydas for any future re-detention. The reliance on recent, similar district court decisions further supports the decision.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREI BIKMASOV, Case No.: 26-CV-2517 JLS (DEB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, WARDEN, et al., 15 (ECF No. 11) Respondents. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Andrei Bikmasov’s Amended Petition for 18 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 11). Also before 19 the Court are Respondents’ Response to Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 12) and Petitioner’s 20 Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 13). Petitioner, a native and citizen of Russia, alleges that 21 he has been detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention 23 Center since June 2025. Pet at 2. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to release under 24 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), as he has been detained for over eleven months 25 and removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Id. 26 Respondents submit that they were “unable to ascertain sufficient facts at this time 27 to establish that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 28 future,” and thus, “acknowledge that Petitioner is entitled to be released from custody 1 || subject to conditions of supervision.” Ret. at 1. The Court finds that Petitioner is entitled 2 ||to release. See, e.g., Azzo v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-03122-RBM-BJW, 2025 WL 3535208, 3 *3-4, 8 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025) (granting release because there was not a significant 4 || likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future); Gharakhan v. Noem, No. 25- 5 || CV-02879-DMS-AHG, 2025 WL 3539161, at *2—3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025) (same); 6 || Grishchenko v. Noem, No. 25-CV-3514-JES-JLB, 2025 WL 3675070, at *2—3 (S.D. Cal. 7 || Dec. 17, 2025) (same). 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of 9 || Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner 10 || from custody. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner 11 entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of her release and a hearing before a 12 |/neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted. The Government shall 13 ||/bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a 14 || danger to the community or a risk of flight. The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint 15 ||Status Report by July 7, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. As this 16 concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: June 16, 2026 . tt 19 jen Janis L. Sammartino 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28