Dmitrii Dobrovkin v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00217
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DMITIRII DOBROVKIN, Case No.: 26-cv-217-BJC-MSB 10 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON THE WRIT AND 11 v. PROHIBITING TRANSFER OF 12 Christopher LAROSE, Senior Warden, PETITIONER Otay Mesa Detention Center, 13

Respondent. 14 [ECF No. 1]

15 On January 14, 2026, Dmitrii Dobrovkin (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of 16 habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. Petitioner does not identify his country of citizenship. See 17 generally id. He alleges, however, that he entered the United States on September 25, 18 2025, and was taken into immigration custody immediately upon arrival. Id. at 6. On 19 December 10, 2025, Petitioner appeared for his initial master calendar hearing before the 20 immigration court. Id. His individual merits hearing is currently scheduled for April 16, 21 2026. Id. Petitioner further alleges that he entered the United States with his wife, who is 22 currently pregnant and experiencing a high-risk pregnancy. Id. Her expected due date is 23 January 20, 2026. Id. 24 The Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the 25 Court to hold the hearing and provide a reasoned decision on the pending motion. See E- 26 C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) 27 (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, 28 | |} detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 ||motion for injunctive relief); A.M. v. Larose et al, No. 3:25-CV-1412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. 3 || Cal. June 4, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the 4 || plaintiffs from the Southern District of California to preserve the court’s jurisdiction). 5 || Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 l. The Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and 7 potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, 8 the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San 9 Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by January 30, 2026 to 10 demonstrate his financial eligibility. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b). 12 2. Respondents shall file a response to the writ of habeas corpus B no later than close of business on January 23, 2026. 14 3. Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on January 39, 2026. 15 16 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 7 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending 18 further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to hold 19 a hearing and provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand. 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 16, 2026 22 23 24

26 27 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 28

sy