Jian Yang v. Christopher J. LaRose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — (Id.) The Court 28 explained: I Petitioner fails to show that DHS is responsible for delaying or prolonging his 7 immigration
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Jian Yang filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention, which the court found to be duplicative of a first petition denied one week prior. The court denied the petition and ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition. (ECF No. 1.)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petition was duplicative of a prior petition denied on the merits one week earlier. The order notes that the prior denial considered the same facts (including the pending appeal to the BIA) and that no new grounds were raised. Dismissing a repetitive habeas petition is a standard procedural mechanism to prevent abuse of process. |
Dismissal of Action Without Prejudice“The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment dismissing this action without prejudice and shall close the case file.” | agree with court Dismissing a duplicative petition without prejudice is appropriate as it allows the petitioner to refile if new, non-duplicative grounds arise, while closing the current docket to prevent redundant litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture. It correctly identifies the prior related case, notes the lack of new grounds, and applies the standard for dismissing duplicative petitions. The footnote clarifies that the prior court had already considered the pending BIA appeal, negating any argument that the new petition raised a materially different factual scenario.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIAN YANG, Case No. 26-cv-04051-BAS-JAC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On July 14, 2026, Petitioner Jian Yang filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) This is Petitioner’s second Petition filed in 20 recent weeks. (See Yang v. LaRose, 26-cv-03398-BAS-JAC (S.D. Cal. filed June 4, 2026) 21 (“First Petition”).) 22 The First Petition was filed without counsel on June 4, 2026. (First Petition, ECF 23 No. 1.) The Court referred the Petition to Federal Defenders for consideration of 24 appointment of counsel. (Id., ECF No. 2.) A Federal Defender appeared on Petitioner’s 25 behalf and filed an Amended Petition. (Id., ECF Nos. 6–7.) After briefing, the Court denied 26 the Petition on July 7, 2026. (Id., ECF No. 10.) The Court reasoned that Petitioner’s 27 immigration detention has not been arbitrarily or unreasonably prolonged. (Id.) The Court 28 explained: I Petitioner fails to show that DHS is responsible for delaying or prolonging his 7 immigration proceedings, nor at this point, does his detention appear to be for an indefinite period. Finally, an Immigration Judge has denied his requests for 3 relief, which decreases the likelihood that he will be successful on appeal. 4 Since Petitioner fails to demonstrate that his detention has been arbitrarily or unreasonably prolonged, his Petition on this ground fails. 5 6 || Ud.) 7 Only a week later, Petitioner filed the present Petition through new counsel, again 8 alleging that his detention has been unreasonably prolonged. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition 9 || was initially assigned to the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw, who entered a briefing order. 10 ||(ECF No. 2.) After the Government filed a Notice of Related Case, the Petition was 11 || transferred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 5.) 12 A habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. 13 || See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-01118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. 14 || Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). The Petition here provides no new information or grounds for relief 15 || that were not raised in the First Petition, which was denied only a week before this Second 16 || Petition was filed.’ Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition. (ECF No. 1.) 17 The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment dismissing this action without prejudice 18 |} and shall close the case file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || DATED: July 28, 2026 □ id A (Dipharb 2 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 53 United States District Court 24 25 1 woe . . . □□□ Petitioner alleges that he has since filed an appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision to the 26 || Board of Immigration Appeals. (Pet. § 24.) However, when the Court denied the First Petition, the Court knew that Petitioner intended to appeal the Immigration Judge’s decision and took that factor into account 27 reaching its decision. (See First Petition, ECF No. 7 (“Mr. Yang’s appeal is due June 29, 2026, and he 28 intends to file it.”); see also id., ECF No. 10 (discussing the prospect of an appeal in denying the First Petition).)