Murodov v. Noem et al

1
26-cv-0666-AGS-BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Murodov NORINBEK,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi NOEM, et al.,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-0666-AGS-BLM
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
Unrepresented petitioner Murodov Norinbek seeks a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.)
At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant
a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting
application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In
this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly
not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).
But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to
justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
On “October 22, 2025,” petitioner “arrived in the U.S.” (ECF 1, at 13.) Petitioner is
seeking “asylum.” (Id.) His asylum claim is still pending. (Id.) Petitioner also mentions
that he has a “Social Security Number” and, at some point, had a “J-1 visa.” (Id.) He does
not indicate when the visa expired. (Id.)
Although thin on critical details—including how he came to be in immigration
custody in the first place, which is necessary to determine what statutory detention scheme
she’s subject to—petitioner’s claims are not frivolous. After all, some courts have
concluded that prolonged detention can violate due process, even for arriving aliens subject
to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225(b). 	See, 	e.g., 	Kydyrali 	v. 	Wolf,
Case 3:26-cv-00666-AGS-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0666-AGS-BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across
the country in concluding that an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Thus, the
government must respond.
By February 12, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by
petitioner must be filed by February 19, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the
petition on February 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Dated: February 5, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00666-AGS-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2