Dmytro Adamov v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking release from custody. The court dismissed the petition as duplicative of a prior denial by the Western District of Washington and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed“The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition without ordering a response.” | agree with court The court's decision to dismiss the petition as duplicative is procedurally sound. The order recites that a prior court (W.D. Wash.) issued a reasoned opinion denying the same petitioner's habeas petition on the merits. Under general federal habeas principles, a second petition that is identical to a previously adjudicated petition is subject to dismissal as duplicative. The court correctly noted that the subsequent issuance of a Ninth Circuit opinion (Rodriguez Vazquez) did not alter the outcome because the petitioner's specific facts (crossing into Canada) distinguished him from the precedent. The dismissal without a response is appropriate for a facially duplicative petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient for a summary dismissal of a duplicative petition. It correctly identifies the prior adjudication, cites the standard for duplicative petitions, and addresses the potential impact of new intervening law (Rodriguez Vazquez) by distinguishing the facts. The reasoning directly answers the motion (petition) with the appropriate procedural mechanism (dismissal as duplicative).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DMYTRO ADAMOV, Case No.: 3:26-cv-5311-CAB-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Dmytro Adamov, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 19 Petitioner is a citizen of Ukraine who originally entered the United States on 20 December 1, 2022, through the Uniting for Ukraine parole program. [Doc. No. 1 at 6.] On 21 May 13, 2026, Petitioner left the United States and attempted re-entry at the Canadian 22 border. [Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 1-2 at 4, 5.] As described in the Western District of 23 Washington’s opinion denying his first habeas petition, immigration officials detained 24 Petitioner at the border and revoked his parole based on his “criminal arrests, protection 25 order, possession of controlled substances, and misrepresentation made on an application 26 for an immigration benefit[.]” Adamov v. Scott, No. 2:26-CV-02099-DGE, 2026 WL 27 2137359, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 24, 2026). 28 A habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. 2 || See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-01118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. 3 ||Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). Here, the Western District of Washington already reviewed 4 ||Petitioner’s case and denied it with a reasoned opinion which considered Petitioner’s 5 argument that he did not intend to leave the United States. Though Rodriguez Vazquez v. 6 || Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026) was issued a few days later, that is irrelevant to 7 || Petitioner, who crossed into Canada—whether intentionally or not—and then was detained 8 his return. The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition without ordering a response. 9 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 10 It is SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 23, 2026 13 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28