Igor Popov v. Warden of Imperial Detention Facility; Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Warden of Imperial Detention Facility et al.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking a new bond hearing. The court denied the petition without prejudice and denied the motion to appoint counsel as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petition without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition, finding that the petitioner failed to state new grounds or changed circumstances justifying a new bond hearing after a recent denial in a prior case. The decision is consistent with the principle that successive petitions are not granted absent new evidence or changed circumstances. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel“The Court also DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel as moot.” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was denied, the motion for appointment of counsel to assist with that petition became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for summary dismissal and applies the factual record (the prior bond hearing and lack of new circumstances) to deny the petition. It relies on appropriate district court and circuit authority for the proposition that new grounds are required for successive petitions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IGOR POPOV, Case No.: 26-cv-3880-JES-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL DETENTION OF HABEAS CORPUS; and FACILITY; CURRENT OR ACTING 15 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, San Diego (2) DENYING MOTION TO 16 Field Office, United States Immigration APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT and Customs Enforcement; CURRENT 17 OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE 18 DIRECTOR, United States Immigration [ECF Nos. 1, 2] and Customs Enforcement; CURRENT 19 OR ACTING SECRETARY, Unites 20 States Department of Homeland Security; and CURRENT OR ACTING UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondents. 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Igor Popov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on July 6, 2026. ECF No. 1. 25 Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ 26 or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, 27 unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled 28 1 || thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations 2 ||in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.” 3 || Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v. 4 || Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)). 5 Here, Petitioner reasserts the same claims he previously brought in an earlier 6 || petition. See Popov v. Warden of Imperial Detention Facility et al., No. 3:26-cv-1174-JES- 7 || BLM at Dkt. 12 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2026). There, the Court ordered a bond hearing. /d. 8 || Petitioner was provided a bond hearing, and bond was denied. /d. at Dkt. 14. Petitioner 9 ||moved for further consideration of the adequacy of his bond hearing. /d. at Dkt. 15.. The 10 || Court denied the motion. /d. at Dkt. 16. 11 Courts have ordered additional bond hearings in cases with changed circumstances, 12 where significant additional time has passed rendering detention again unjust without 13 |/renewed justification. See Mercado-Arechiga v. Larose, No. 26-CV-683-JES-DEB, 2026 14 || WL 926901, at *5-6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026) (explaining analysis of requests for additional 15 bond hearings on due process grounds). Here, Petitioner has not stated any grounds for an 16 || additional bond hearing. Petitioner’s last bond hearing was on April 13, 2026, three months 17 || prior to the writing of this order. Petitioner does not state changed circumstances justifying 18 ||a new bond hearing in his case, but simply restates the same allegations brought in his 19 || previous petition. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to 20 order to show cause on this new Petition at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 21 Petition without prejudice. The Court also DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint 22 counsel as moot. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: July 17, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28