Sharipov Khursand v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a third habeas corpus petition filed by a detained immigration petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court dismissed the petition as duplicative because it raised no new grounds for relief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the Petition.” | agree with court The order recites that this is the petitioner's third habeas petition and that the current petition provides no new information or grounds for relief compared to previously decided petitions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and general federal habeas practice, successive petitions that do not present new grounds are subject to dismissal. The court's reliance on the duplicative nature of the petition is consistent with the procedural history provided in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound but brief. It correctly identifies the petition as successive and duplicative based on the court's own docket history. However, it does not explicitly cite 28 U.S.S.C. § 2244(b) (the statutory bar on successive petitions) or the specific standard for 'new grounds' in the immigration context, relying instead on a district court's unpublished order. While the result is defensible, the legal analysis is thin.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARIPOV KHURSAND, Case No.: 26-cv-4221-CAB-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Sharipov Khursand has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 19 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] This is his third habeas petition. [Case Nos. 26-cv-2183- 20 CAB-JLB; 26-cv-845-CAB-JLB.] In his first petition, this Court ordered Respondents to 21 provide Petitioner a bond hearing. [Case No. 3:26-cv-845-CAB-JLB at Doc. No. 5.] 22 Petitioner subsequently received a bond hearing on March 11, 2026; the Immigration Judge 23 (“IJ”) denied bond finding Petitioner was a flight risk. [Id. at Doc. No. 6-1.] Petitioner has 24 appealed that bond decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Separately, Petitioner 25 was ordered removed on May 15, 2026. His appeal of that removal order also remains 26 ongoing. 27 A habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. 28 See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-01118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. 1 || Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). Here, the Petition provides no new information or grounds for relief 2 were not raised in the previously decided petitions. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES 3 || the Petition. 4 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 5 Itis SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: July 29, 2026 (GB 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28