1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 NIKOLAI TARBAKHOV, CASE NO. C26-0279JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 WARDEN OF NORTHWEST 13 DETENTION CENTER, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by 17 Liubov Tarbakhova as next friend of her husband Nikolai Tarbakhov, who is proceeding 18 in forma pauperis and pro se (“Petitioner”). (Pet. (Dkt. # 5); Traverse (Dkt. # 12); 19 Tarbakhova Decl. (Dkt. # 13) (affirming Mrs. Tarbakhova’s marriage to Petitioner); see 20 also Tarbakhov Decl. (Dkt. # 14) (sealed), Ex. A (Marriage Certificate).) The 21 22 1 Government1 opposes the petition and moves to strike the court’s scheduling order to 2 allow Mrs. Tarbakhova an opportunity to file a motion establishing her qualifications to
3 act as next friend for Petitioner. (Return (Dkt. # 8) at 2.) The court has considered the 4 parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Being 5 fully informed, the court GRANTS the petition and DENIES the motion to strike. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 Petitioner is a citizen of Russia who entered the United States at or near San 8 Ysidro, California, on September 18, 2023. (Douglas Decl. (Dkt # 9) ¶ 4.) The
9 Government granted Petitioner and his family paroled entry and placed him into 10 immigration proceedings in Sacramento, California. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6; Wong Decl. (Dkt. # 10) 11 ¶ 2, Ex. 2 (Notice to Appear).) Between January 2024 and September 2024, an 12 immigration judge continued Petitioner’s case several times so that Petitioner could 13 obtain counsel and because he moved for a change of venue first to New York, New
14 York, and then to Seattle, Washington. (Douglas Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.) In September 2024, 15 Petitioner filed for asylum and for withholding of removal. (Id. ¶ 10.) Petitioner’s next 16 master hearing is scheduled for April 5, 2028, in Seattle, Washington. (Id. ¶ 11.) 17 The Government represents that Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) 18 did not grant Petitioner approval to leave the state of New York. (Id. ¶ 12.) On January
19 11, 2026, DHS agents placed Petitioner in custody at the Northwest ICE Processing 20
21 1 The federal Respondents are Laura Hermosillo, Acting Field Office Director for the Seattle Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Secretary of the 22 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (together, the “Government”). (See Pet. at 1.) 1 Center (“NWIPC”) where he has since remained. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15; Wong Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 2 (I-213); id., Ex. 3 (Warrant).)
3 On February 5, 2026, Mrs. Tarbakhova filed the instant petition as next friend of 4 Petitioner asserting that the Government’s continued detention of Petitioner violates his 5 due process rights and is unlawful under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet. at 2.) The petition 6 requests three forms of relief: (1) that the Government state its basis for detaining 7 Petitioner, (2) an immediate bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker, or 8 (3) Petitioner’s immediate release from detention. (Id.) Briefing is complete and the
9 petition is ripe for the court’s review. 10 III. ANALYSIS 11 The court first addresses the Government’s motion to strike before turning to the 12 merits of the petition. 13 A. The Government’s Motion to Strike is Denied.
14 The Supreme Court has held that a third party may file a petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus on behalf of a noncitizen by invoking “next friend” status. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 16 495 U.S. 149, 161-64 (1990) (“A ‘next friend’ does not himself become a party to the 17 habeas corpus action in which he participates, but simply pursues the cause on behalf of 18 the detained person, who remains the real party in interest.”) (citations omitted).
19 Relatedly, the Ninth Circuit has set forth that to establish next friend standing a “putative 20 next friend must show” that she “has some significant relationship with, and is truly 21 dedicated to the best interests of, the plaintiff.” Coal. of Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. 22 Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 1 244 F. 3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001)) (compiling cases in which the court granted next 2 friend status to third parties on behalf of prisoners and other detained persons). The
3 requirements to show the requisite relationship are not “static” and “must necessarily 4 adapt to the circumstances facing each individual [plaintiff][,]” id. at 1162, but generally 5 require that the putative next friend “provide an adequate explanation – such as 6 inaccessibility, mental incompetence or other disability – as to why the real party in 7 interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action[,]” id. at 1159 (quoting 8 Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163); Naruto v. Slater, 888 F. 3d 418, 430 (9th Cir. 2018).
9 Here, Mrs. Tarbakhova grounds her next friend status in her marriage to 10 Petitioner, his current status as a person in federal custody at NWIPC, and his limited 11 English language skills and lack of access to technology that preclude self-advocacy. 12 (Tarbakhova Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) She has adduced evidence of a legal marriage to Petitioner 13 and that they share a child together. (Marriage Certificate; Tarbakhova Decl. ¶ 3.) The
14 court has no doubt that the relationship is “significant” and that she is “truly dedicated to 15 the best interests of [] the petitioner.” Naruto, 888 F. 3d at 430. Additionally, there is a 16 lengthy, well-documented history of courts granting next friend status to third parties 17 who advocate on behalf of persons detained by the government, either domestically or 18 abroad. See Coal. of Clergy, Laws., & Professors, 310 F.3d at 1159 (compiling cases of
19 this nature). Thus, on these bases, the court grants Mrs. Tarbakhova next friend status to 20 bring this habeas action on behalf of Petitioner. Consequently, the court denies the 21 Government’s motion to strike. 22 1 B. The Government’s Continued Detention of Petitioner is Unlawful. 2 The INA permits detention of noncitizens present in the United States during
3 immigration proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), 1231(a). Although 4 § 1225(b) requires mandatory detention for certain noncitizens “seeking entry” into the 5 United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 299 (2018), all persons, regardless of 6 their immigration status, are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment, see 7 also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to 8 all ‘persons’ within the United States, including [non-citizens], whether their presence
9 here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). Thus, even when the government 10 believes it has a lawful basis for detaining a noncitizen, it remains subject to the 11 requirement to effectuate that detention in a manner that comports with due process. See 12 E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1320 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“Procedural due 13 process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of
14 ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 15 or Fourteenth Amendment.”) (citing Mathews v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 NIKOLAI TARBAKHOV, CASE NO. C26-0279JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 WARDEN OF NORTHWEST 13 DETENTION CENTER, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by 17 Liubov Tarbakhova as next friend of her husband Nikolai Tarbakhov, who is proceeding 18 in forma pauperis and pro se (“Petitioner”). (Pet. (Dkt. # 5); Traverse (Dkt. # 12); 19 Tarbakhova Decl. (Dkt. # 13) (affirming Mrs. Tarbakhova’s marriage to Petitioner); see 20 also Tarbakhov Decl. (Dkt. # 14) (sealed), Ex. A (Marriage Certificate).) The 21 22 1 Government1 opposes the petition and moves to strike the court’s scheduling order to 2 allow Mrs. Tarbakhova an opportunity to file a motion establishing her qualifications to
3 act as next friend for Petitioner. (Return (Dkt. # 8) at 2.) The court has considered the 4 parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Being 5 fully informed, the court GRANTS the petition and DENIES the motion to strike. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 Petitioner is a citizen of Russia who entered the United States at or near San 8 Ysidro, California, on September 18, 2023. (Douglas Decl. (Dkt # 9) ¶ 4.) The
9 Government granted Petitioner and his family paroled entry and placed him into 10 immigration proceedings in Sacramento, California. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6; Wong Decl. (Dkt. # 10) 11 ¶ 2, Ex. 2 (Notice to Appear).) Between January 2024 and September 2024, an 12 immigration judge continued Petitioner’s case several times so that Petitioner could 13 obtain counsel and because he moved for a change of venue first to New York, New
14 York, and then to Seattle, Washington. (Douglas Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.) In September 2024, 15 Petitioner filed for asylum and for withholding of removal. (Id. ¶ 10.) Petitioner’s next 16 master hearing is scheduled for April 5, 2028, in Seattle, Washington. (Id. ¶ 11.) 17 The Government represents that Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) 18 did not grant Petitioner approval to leave the state of New York. (Id. ¶ 12.) On January
19 11, 2026, DHS agents placed Petitioner in custody at the Northwest ICE Processing 20
21 1 The federal Respondents are Laura Hermosillo, Acting Field Office Director for the Seattle Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Secretary of the 22 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (together, the “Government”). (See Pet. at 1.) 1 Center (“NWIPC”) where he has since remained. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15; Wong Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 2 (I-213); id., Ex. 3 (Warrant).)
3 On February 5, 2026, Mrs. Tarbakhova filed the instant petition as next friend of 4 Petitioner asserting that the Government’s continued detention of Petitioner violates his 5 due process rights and is unlawful under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet. at 2.) The petition 6 requests three forms of relief: (1) that the Government state its basis for detaining 7 Petitioner, (2) an immediate bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker, or 8 (3) Petitioner’s immediate release from detention. (Id.) Briefing is complete and the
9 petition is ripe for the court’s review. 10 III. ANALYSIS 11 The court first addresses the Government’s motion to strike before turning to the 12 merits of the petition. 13 A. The Government’s Motion to Strike is Denied.
14 The Supreme Court has held that a third party may file a petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus on behalf of a noncitizen by invoking “next friend” status. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 16 495 U.S. 149, 161-64 (1990) (“A ‘next friend’ does not himself become a party to the 17 habeas corpus action in which he participates, but simply pursues the cause on behalf of 18 the detained person, who remains the real party in interest.”) (citations omitted).
19 Relatedly, the Ninth Circuit has set forth that to establish next friend standing a “putative 20 next friend must show” that she “has some significant relationship with, and is truly 21 dedicated to the best interests of, the plaintiff.” Coal. of Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. 22 Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 1 244 F. 3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001)) (compiling cases in which the court granted next 2 friend status to third parties on behalf of prisoners and other detained persons). The
3 requirements to show the requisite relationship are not “static” and “must necessarily 4 adapt to the circumstances facing each individual [plaintiff][,]” id. at 1162, but generally 5 require that the putative next friend “provide an adequate explanation – such as 6 inaccessibility, mental incompetence or other disability – as to why the real party in 7 interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action[,]” id. at 1159 (quoting 8 Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163); Naruto v. Slater, 888 F. 3d 418, 430 (9th Cir. 2018).
9 Here, Mrs. Tarbakhova grounds her next friend status in her marriage to 10 Petitioner, his current status as a person in federal custody at NWIPC, and his limited 11 English language skills and lack of access to technology that preclude self-advocacy. 12 (Tarbakhova Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) She has adduced evidence of a legal marriage to Petitioner 13 and that they share a child together. (Marriage Certificate; Tarbakhova Decl. ¶ 3.) The
14 court has no doubt that the relationship is “significant” and that she is “truly dedicated to 15 the best interests of [] the petitioner.” Naruto, 888 F. 3d at 430. Additionally, there is a 16 lengthy, well-documented history of courts granting next friend status to third parties 17 who advocate on behalf of persons detained by the government, either domestically or 18 abroad. See Coal. of Clergy, Laws., & Professors, 310 F.3d at 1159 (compiling cases of
19 this nature). Thus, on these bases, the court grants Mrs. Tarbakhova next friend status to 20 bring this habeas action on behalf of Petitioner. Consequently, the court denies the 21 Government’s motion to strike. 22 1 B. The Government’s Continued Detention of Petitioner is Unlawful. 2 The INA permits detention of noncitizens present in the United States during
3 immigration proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), 1231(a). Although 4 § 1225(b) requires mandatory detention for certain noncitizens “seeking entry” into the 5 United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 299 (2018), all persons, regardless of 6 their immigration status, are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment, see 7 also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to 8 all ‘persons’ within the United States, including [non-citizens], whether their presence
9 here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). Thus, even when the government 10 believes it has a lawful basis for detaining a noncitizen, it remains subject to the 11 requirement to effectuate that detention in a manner that comports with due process. See 12 E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1320 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“Procedural due 13 process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of
14 ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 15 or Fourteenth Amendment.”) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976)). 16 The Parole Statute provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with discretion to 17 grant parole on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant 18 public benefit [.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). When the Secretary grants a noncitizen
19 entry to the United States on parole, such: 20 [r]elease reflects a determination by the government that the noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk. Once a noncitizen has been 21 released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, the federal agents must 22 be able to present evidence of materially changed circumstances—namely, 1 evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. 2 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Saravia 3 for A.H. v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018). 4 DHS’s decision to revoke a noncitizen’s parole under § 1182(d)(5)(A) must be 5 made on an individualized basis and carried out only after the purposes of the parole have 6 been served. See Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1138 (D. Or. 2025) 7 (“Common sense suggests . . . that parole given only on a case-by-case basis is to be 8 terminated only on such a basis.”) (citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) 9 (stating that once parole is granted, DHS may only terminate parole “when the purposes 10 of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been 11 served”). 12 Here, the court concludes that the Government (1) revoked Petitioner’s parole and 13 brought him into federal custody without adequate consideration of the individualized 14 facts and circumstances, including the absence of changes that justify revocation of his 15 parole, and (2) re-detained him without the lawful authority of persons authorized to 16 revoke his release, both of which violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment. 17 The Government does not contest that Petitioner has no arrests or criminal history 18 in the United States. (Pet. at 1; see generally Return); see Saravia, 280 F. Supp. 3d at 19 1176. In fact, the record demonstrates that, from the time Petitioner was present in the 20 United States, he has fully complied with the relevant immigration procedures. (Traverse 21 at 1; see also Douglas Decl. ¶¶ 7-11 (documenting Petitioner’s impeccable history of 22 1 compliance with immigration proceedings, including appearing for all hearings before an 2 immigration judge and requesting continuances to obtain counsel, change venue, and
3 apply for asylum).) Moreover, the Government does not assert that they revoked 4 Petitioner’s parole because the DHS Secretary determined that the purposes of the parole 5 have been served. (See generally Return.) 6 In response, the Government argues that because Petitioner is subject to 7 mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and because he did not inform ERO of his 8 relocation, his re-detention is lawful. (See Return at 7.) The court rejects this
9 argument. Regardless of the reason for Petitioner’s detention, the Government remains 10 subject to an obligation to “effectuate [his] detention in a manner that comports with due 11 process.” See E.A. T.-B., 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1322. 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons above, the court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus
14 (Dkt. # 5). The court ORDERS as follows: 15 (1) Respondents’ motion to strike (Dkt. # 8) is DENIED; 16 (2) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody; 17 (3) Respondents are ORDERED to file, by no later than 48 hours after the 18 issuance of this order, an affidavit confirming that Petitioner has been released
19 from custody. 20 Dated this 9 th day of March, 2026. A 21 JAMES L. ROBART 22 United States District Judge