Iagounov v. U.S. District Court of Nevada

D. Nevada

Iagounov v. U.S. District Court of Nevada

DecidedJuly 23, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00365

StatusUnknown

This text of Iagounov v. U.S. District Court of Nevada (Iagounov v. U.S. District Court of Nevada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iagounov v. U.S. District Court of Nevada, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 ANTON IAGOUNOV, Case No. 3:25-cv-00365-ART-CDS

6 Petitioner, v. DISMISSAL ORDER 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 OF NEVADA, et al.,

9 Respondents.

11 Pro se Petitioner Anton Iagounov, a federal pretrial detainee, has filed a 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 13 (“Petition”).) After reviewing the Petition under the Rules Governing Section 2254 14 Cases,1 the Court dismisses the Petition. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 On May 8, 2025, Iagounov was indicted on fifteen counts of false 17 information and hoax in United States of America v. Anton Andreyevich Iagounov, 18 3:25-cr-00017-ART-CSD-1.2 Iagounov’s jury trial is currently scheduled for 19 August 26, 2025. In his Petition, Iagounov presents the following grounds for 20 relief: (1) the Indictment lacks probable cause, (2) he has been the target of 21 vindictive prosecution, (3) his extradition from Mexico to the United States lacked 22 due process, (4) there was collusion by the grand jurors, (5) jurisdiction rests with 23 the Department of Defense, and (6) the FBI conspired with the Carson City 24 Sheriff’s Office. (ECF No. 1.) 25

26 1 The Court exercises its discretion to apply the rules governing § 2254 petitions 27 to this § 2241 action. (Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254.) 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket records in case number 3:25-cr- 28 00017-ART-CSD-1. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is the appropriate vehicle for a petitioner who 3 wishes to challenge the execution of his sentence. See United States v. Giddings, 4 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Review of the execution of a sentence may be 5 had through petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). 6 Comparatively, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the trial court is generally the 7 appropriate vehicle for a defendant challenging the validity of a federal sentence 8 or conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (stating that “[a] prisoner in custody under 9 sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be 10 released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the 11 Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed 12 the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence”). As such, federal 13 petitioners are limited from seeking relief under § 2241. See Moore v. Reno, 185 14 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). There is an exception to this limitation, which 15 “permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 to 16 contest the legality of a sentence where his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate 17 or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 18 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the 19 petitioner “must never have had the opportunity to raise [his] claims by motion.” 20 Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 Iagounov is a federal pretrial detainee, seeking relief concerning the validity 22 of his pretrial detention and Indictment. As such, the proper vehicle for 23 Iagounov’s claims is through a motion or petition in his criminal case. The Court 24 dismisses the Petition in the instant action. This disposition, however, is without 25 prejudice to any motion or petition Iagounov’s counsel may wish to file in his 26 criminal proceedings. 27 III. CONCLUSION 28 It is therefore ordered that the Petition [ECF No. 1] is dismissed. 1 It is further ordered that a Certificate of Appealability is denied because 2 || reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s conclusions to be debatable or 3 || wrong. 4 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 5 || accordingly and close this action. 6 DATED THIS 23rd day of July 2025. 7 jlosed Jer 9 Awe Vowed om ANNE R. TRAUM 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 ANTON IAGOUNOV, Case No. 3:25-cv-00365-ART-CDS

6 Petitioner, v. DISMISSAL ORDER 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 OF NEVADA, et al.,

9 Respondents.

11 Pro se Petitioner Anton Iagounov, a federal pretrial detainee, has filed a 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 13 (“Petition”).) After reviewing the Petition under the Rules Governing Section 2254 14 Cases,1 the Court dismisses the Petition. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 On May 8, 2025, Iagounov was indicted on fifteen counts of false 17 information and hoax in United States of America v. Anton Andreyevich Iagounov, 18 3:25-cr-00017-ART-CSD-1.2 Iagounov’s jury trial is currently scheduled for 19 August 26, 2025. In his Petition, Iagounov presents the following grounds for 20 relief: (1) the Indictment lacks probable cause, (2) he has been the target of 21 vindictive prosecution, (3) his extradition from Mexico to the United States lacked 22 due process, (4) there was collusion by the grand jurors, (5) jurisdiction rests with 23 the Department of Defense, and (6) the FBI conspired with the Carson City 24 Sheriff’s Office. (ECF No. 1.) 25

26 1 The Court exercises its discretion to apply the rules governing § 2254 petitions 27 to this § 2241 action. (Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254.) 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket records in case number 3:25-cr- 28 00017-ART-CSD-1. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is the appropriate vehicle for a petitioner who 3 wishes to challenge the execution of his sentence. See United States v. Giddings, 4 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Review of the execution of a sentence may be 5 had through petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). 6 Comparatively, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the trial court is generally the 7 appropriate vehicle for a defendant challenging the validity of a federal sentence 8 or conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (stating that “[a] prisoner in custody under 9 sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be 10 released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the 11 Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed 12 the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence”). As such, federal 13 petitioners are limited from seeking relief under § 2241. See Moore v. Reno, 185 14 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). There is an exception to this limitation, which 15 “permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 to 16 contest the legality of a sentence where his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate 17 or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 18 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the 19 petitioner “must never have had the opportunity to raise [his] claims by motion.” 20 Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 Iagounov is a federal pretrial detainee, seeking relief concerning the validity 22 of his pretrial detention and Indictment. As such, the proper vehicle for 23 Iagounov’s claims is through a motion or petition in his criminal case. The Court 24 dismisses the Petition in the instant action. This disposition, however, is without 25 prejudice to any motion or petition Iagounov’s counsel may wish to file in his 26 criminal proceedings. 27 III. CONCLUSION 28 It is therefore ordered that the Petition [ECF No. 1] is dismissed. 1 It is further ordered that a Certificate of Appealability is denied because 2 || reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s conclusions to be debatable or 3 || wrong. 4 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 5 || accordingly and close this action. 6 DATED THIS 23rd day of July 2025. 7 jlosed Jer 9 Awe Vowed om ANNE R. TRAUM 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Iagounov v. U.S. District Court of Nevada, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iagounov-v-us-district-court-of-nevada-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack