Ksenia RUMIANTSEVA v. WARDEN OF OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03844
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Ksenia RUMIANTSEVA, Case No.: 25-cv-3844-AGS-DEB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 WARDEN OF OTAY MESA 7 DETENTION CENTER, 8 Respondent. 9 10 Petitioner Ksenia Rumiantseva seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 11 to free her from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.) 12 At this stage, she need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to 13 warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 14 Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and 15 any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting 16 application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In 17 this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly 18 not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). 19 But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to 20 justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 21 On “June 18, 2025,” petitioner was ordered removed to Russia. (ECF 1, at 6, 13.) 22 She “appealed,” and her appeal remains pending. (Id. at 6.) She claims that she has been 23 “detained since September 22, 2024.” (Id.) She asserts that she has been denied “an 24 individualized custody review to which she is entitled under ICE policy,” although she 25 identifies no such policy. (Id.) That denial, and her continued custody, she argues violates 26 her due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative 27 Procedures Act. 28 Although thin on critical details—including how she came to be in immigration 1 |} custody in the first place, which is necessary to determine what statutory detention scheme 2 ||she’s subject to—petitioner’s claims are not frivolous. After all, some courts have 3 || concluded that prolonged detention can violate due process, even for arriving aliens subject 4 ||to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 5 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country 6 ||in concluding that an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without 7 individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Thus, the government must 8 || respond. 9 By January 16, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by petitioner 10 || must be filed by January 23, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the petition on 11 || January 30, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. 12 Dated: January 2, 2026

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