E.S. v. Christopher LaROSE, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 26, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03783
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 E.S., Case No.: 25-cv-3783-AGS-JLB 4 Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION AND REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher LaROSE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner E.S. seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 10 immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is sufficiently 11 cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 12 States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from 13 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 14 1(b) (permitting court to apply Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus 15 petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims 16 that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) 17 (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or 18 incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 On “September 27, 2024,” petitioner, a “Russian citizen and Ukrainian native,” 20 “presented himself at the U.S./Mexico border” and was “taken into [Department of 21 Homeland Security] custody” as “an arriving alien.” (ECF 1, at 4.) He has been detained 22 at the “Otay Mesa Detention Center” since. (Id.) He was “denied all [removal] relief on 23 May 30, 2025,” but an appeal of that decision is pending. (Id.) He claims that, in the 24 interim, his “15 months” prolonged mandatory detention “without an individualized bond 25 hearing” violates “his due process rights.” (Id. at 5.) So, he seeks “immediate release” or a 26 “bond hearing.” (Id. at 5–6.) 27 Some courts have concluded that prolonged detention for arriving aliens under 28 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) can violate due process, so this claim is not frivolous or incredible. See, 1 |le.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the 2 ||majority of courts across the country in concluding that an unreasonably prolonged 3 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due 4 || process.”). Thus, the government must respond. By January 6, 2026, respondents must 5 answer the petition. Petitioner may reply by January 13, 2026. The Court will hold oral 6 ||argument on January 20, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. 7 ||Dated: December 26, 2025

9 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28