Artem Semenov v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00598
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTEM SEMENOV, No. 1:25-cv-00598-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING AMENDED PETITION IMPROPERLY FILED 13 v. (Doc. 11) 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, ORDER REQUIRING UPDATE FROM 15 RESPONDENT Respondent. 16 14-Day Deadline

18 Petitioner Artem Semenov (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner asserts a single claim for relief, alleging that his 21 prolonged detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) violates the Due Process 22 Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at 16). 23 After being ordered to file a response to the Petition, Respondent moved to dismiss the 24 Petition on July 7, 2025. (Doc. 10). Of relevance to the current issues before the Court, 25 Respondent argues that as an arriving alien without an entry document, Petitioner is subject to 26 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) during his removal and asylum proceedings. (Id. 27 at 2). At the time of the filing, Respondent represented that “Petitioner’s next hearing [in his 28 immigration proceedings] is scheduled for 7/14/2025.” (Id.). 1 On July 31, 2025, Petitioner lodged/filed a first petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 2 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 11, “Amended Petition”). Notably, the Amended Petition contains 3 Petitioner’s typewritten name without a handwritten signature. (See id. at 5). Petitioner filed an 4 opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 21, 2025. (Doc. 13). 5 Consideration of the Amended Petition 6 The Court must first consider whether the Amended Petition is properly filed and its 7 impact on the pending motion to dismiss. 8 Generally, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of 9 service of a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Further, the filing of an amended 10 pleading supersedes the original, with the original being treated as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cnty 11 of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, if the Amended Petition was 12 properly filed within the time to amend under Rule 15, it would supersede the original Petition 13 and render the motion to dismiss moot. 14 However, upon review of the Amended Petition, the Court concludes that it was not 15 properly filed. 16 The lodging/filing of the Amended Petition may be timely under Rule 15. While the 17 Amended Petition was not received and docketed by the Court until July 31, 2025, it is dated July 18 28, 2025, exactly 21 days after Respondent filed his motion to dismiss. (See Doc. 11 at 5). As a 19 pro se party, Petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of “the ‘mailbox rule,’ which 20 calculates a pro se prisoner litigant’s filing date from the date the document is delivered to a 21 prison official for mailing.” Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 933 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 22 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)). The problem, however, is that nothing in the Amended 23 Petition reflects that Petitioner gave the Amended Petition to detention facility officials on July 24 28, 2025, making it unclear whether it was timely filed. 25 Even if the Court “assume[s] that [Petitioner] turned his petition over to prison authorities 26 on the same day he signed it,” Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1178 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014), a further 27 problem exists because the Amended Petition is not properly signed by Petitioner. Pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 2242, an “[a]pplication for writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified 1 by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” Similarly, Local 2 Rule 131(b) requires that “[a]ll pleadings and non-evidentiary documents shall be signed … by 3 the party involved if that party is appearing in propria persona.” The Local Rules define a 4 signature as a handwritten signature on a paper document or an electronic signature on an 5 electronically-filed document. L.R. 100. Courts maintain discretion to “refuse to file, or … 6 dismiss, an unsigned and unverified petition.” Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 7 1990). 8 As noted above, Petitioner’s Amended Petition contains only his typewritten name 9 without a handwritten signature. (Doc. 11 at 5). However, given that Petitioner is proceeding pro 10 se and is not entitled to file electronically, this typewritten name in the absence of a handwritten 11 signature is insufficient to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Local Rule 131(b). Accordingly, the 12 Amended Petition was not properly filed, the original Petition remains the operative pleading, and 13 the motion to dismiss is not moot. 14 Subsequent Immigration Proceedings 15 At the time Respondent filed his motion to dismiss, he argued that Petitioner was 16 classified as an arriving alien without a valid entry document under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) such that 17 he is subject to mandatory detention throughout his removal and related asylum proceedings. 18 (See Doc. 10 at 2). While Petitioner disputes whether ICE maintains discretion to grant him 19 parole, he does not dispute Respondent’s classification of him or that removal proceedings were 20 ongoing. (See Doc. 13). 21 However, in the time since Respondent filed the motion to dismiss, it appears additional 22 proceedings have occurred in Petitioner’s immigration case. Specifically, searching Petitioner’s 23 A-Number and nationality in the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration 24 Review’s Automated Case Information reveals that on September 4, 2025, an immigration judge 25 ordered Petitioner removed from the United States.1 Thus, it appears Petitioner’s removal

26 1 See https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited Oct. 15, 2025). The Court may properly take judicial notice of Petitioner’s immigration proceedings. See Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 527 n.3 27 (9th Cir. 2023) (finding judicial notice of “documents clarifying the status of [petitioner’s] immigration case” proper because courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the 28 1 | proceedings have concluded and that such would necessarily change Petitioner’s status regarding 2 | what statute he is detained under. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (requiring detention pending 3 | asylum and/or removal proceedings) with 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (addressing detention and removal of 4 | aliens ordered removed). In light of the removal order, the Court finds additional briefing 5 | warranted. 6 Conclusion and Order 7 In accordance with the above, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. Petitioner’s Amended Petition (Doc. 11) is DISREGARDED. The original Petition (Doc. 9 1) remains the operative pleading in this action. 10 2. Within 14 days of this order, Respondent shall file a copy of Petitioner’s order of 11 removal. 12 3. Within 21 days of this order, Respondent shall file a supplemental brief addressing the 13 impact of the removal order on these proceedings. 14 4. Petitioner may file a response to Respondent’s supplemental brief within 21 days from the 15 date of Respondent’s service upon Petitioner of his supplemental brief. 16 | ITIS SOORDERED. M Dated: _ October 16, 2025 | Mw v RY 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28