Ruslan Alibekov v. Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ granted — the Petition is granted.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee alleging that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated his due process rights. The court granted the petition, finding the detention unconstitutionally prolonged, and ordered an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted“For the following reasons, the Petition is granted.” | agree with court The court applied a six-factor balancing test to determine if the detention was unconstitutionally prolonged. It found that the length of detention (nearly one year) and the conditions of confinement (comparable to criminal confinement) weighed in favor of the petitioner, while other factors were neutral due to lack of evidence. This application of the *Jennings* framework to a Section 1225(b) detainee is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (*Rodriguez v. Marin County Sheriff*) and district court practice in this circuit. |
Order directing individualized bond hearing“Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless Petitioner requests a continuance.” | agree with court The remedy of a bond hearing is the standard equitable relief granted when a court finds that prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates due process under the Fifth Amendment. The specific timeline and burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence of danger or flight risk) align with the requirements set forth in *Jennings v. Rodriguez* and subsequent district court orders. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order applies a well-established six-factor test to the specific facts of the case. It correctly identifies that the length of detention and conditions of confinement weigh in favor of the petitioner, while other factors are neutral due to lack of evidence. The conclusion that the detention is unconstitutionally prolonged and the remedy of a bond hearing are consistent with Ninth Circuit law. However, the order relies exclusively on district court cases and does not cite the controlling Supreme Court (*Jennings*) or Ninth Circuit (*Rodriguez*) precedent that establishes the constitutional right to a bond hearing after prolonged detention. This is a gap in the citation of authority, though the legal reasoning is sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSLAN ALIBEKOV, Case No.: 26cv3164 DMS (DEB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 19 Respondent filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Reply. For the following 20 reasons, the Petition is granted. 21 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia. (Return, Ex. 1.) On July 27, 2025, he 22 entered the United States without inspection and was later arrested by Border Patrol 23 officials. (Id.) He was determined to be inadmissible, placed in expedited removal 24 proceedings, and taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Id.) 25 On April 14, 2026, Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge for a merits 26 hearing in his removal proceedings. (Return, Ex. 4.) At that hearing, the immigration 27 judge denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding 28 and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered Petitioner 1 removed to Russia. Petitioner filed an appeal of that decision with Board of Immigration 2 Appeals, and that appeal is pending. 3 On May 20, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case alleging his continued detention 4 without a bond hearing violates his due process rights. Respondents argue the Court lacks 5 jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claim, Petitioner is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. S 6 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), and Petitioner’s detention has not been unconstitutionally prolonged. 7 In Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019), the court 8 set out 9 a framework for analyzing a due process challenge to prolonged detention, a six factor balancing test used by some district courts, that considers: (1) the 10 total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) 11 conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government; 12 and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order 13 of removal. 14 Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F.Supp.3d 1090, 1093-94 (S.D. Cal. 2025). This Court has applied 15 those factors to similar claims, see, e.g., De la Torre Duran v. Doe, Case No. 25cv3230 16 DMS (DDL); Ogandzhanian v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, Case No. 17 26cv0093 DMS MSB, ECF No. 6, and does so again here. 18 Starting with the first factor, Petitioner has been detained since July 27, 2025, or for 19 nearly one year. The current status of Petitioner’s immigration proceedings is unclear, and 20 thus the length of Petitioner’s future detention is also unclear. On the third factor, courts 21 in this District and elsewhere have found the conditions of confinement at Otay Mesa 22 Detention Center, where Petitioner is currently housed, “are not dissimilar to criminal 23 confinement[.]” Gao v. LaRose, 805 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025). See also 24 Zhakuov v. Noem, No. 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL 517981, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25 25, 2026) (quoting Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F.Supp.3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020)) (stating 26 multiple courts have found detention at Otay Mesa “’is indistinguishable from penal 27 confinement’”). On the fourth and fifth factors, Respondents argue they have not engaged 28 in any conduct that delayed Petitioner’s immigration proceedings, but they also have not 1 || produced any evidence that any delays should be attributed to Petitioner. Absent any 2 evidence, these factors are neutral. And the same goes for the sixth factor, as it is unclear 3 || what the outcome of Petitioner’s immigration proceedings will be. 4 Because the balance of factors weigh in favor of Petitioner, the Court finds 5 || Petitioner’s detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged and violates due process. 6 || Accordingly, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for 7 || Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless 8 || Petitioner requests a continuance. At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the 9 || burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the 10 ||/community or a risk of flight ifreleased on bond. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report 11 || within twenty-one (21) days of this Order’s entry confirming Petitioner received a bond 12 || hearing and setting out the results thereof. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: July 14, 2026 I5 nm Bb 16 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28