Renata Nigiematulina v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02933
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENATA NIGIEMATULINA, Case No. 25-cv-02933-BAS-BJW

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN OF OTAY MESA PROCEED IN FORMA DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); Respondents. 16 (2) REQUIRING THE 17 GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO THE PETITION; AND 18

19 (3) REFERRING PETITION TO FEDERAL DEFENDERS FOR 20 EVALUATION REGARDING 21 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 22

24 On October 28, 2025, Petitioner Renata Nigiematulina filed a Petition for Writ of 25 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner also filed a Motion 26 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner, an immigration detainee, attests 27 that she has no assets and cannot pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Id.) The Court grants the Motion 28 to proceed without paying the filing fee. 1 Turning to the allegations, Petitioner claims she is a Russian national who has been 2 detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since November 2024. (Pet. at 2.) 3 Petitioner claims she cannot be removed to Russia, and her removal is not otherwise 4 reasonably foreseeable. (Id. at 3.) Hence, she alleges her continued detention for over six 5 months violates the Fifth Amendment and is contrary to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 6 (2001). 7 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 8 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 9 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 10 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 11 Government to respond to the Petition. 12 Finally, given Petitioner’s allegations, the Court finds it appropriate to refer this 13 Petition to Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. for an evaluation. The Court requests that 14 Federal Defenders determine whether Petitioner would benefit from the appointment of 15 counsel. 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 17 1. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 18 2. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than November 19 7, 2025. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the 20 Petition and must include any documents relevant to the determination of the 21 issues raised in the Petition. 22 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 23 Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 24 4. The Court REFERS this Petition to Federal Defenders for an evaluation of 25 whether appointment of counsel would be beneficial to Petitioner. The Court 26 requests that Federal Defenders make its evaluation and file a status report or 27 appropriate motion by November 13, 2025. 28 I 5. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this 2 Order on Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || DATED: October 30, 2025 yatta Bahar 6 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 4 United States District Court

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Qe