Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-0887-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
Roger FRYE LARGO,
Petitioner,
v.
John DOE, WARDEN, OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0887-AGS-BLM
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
Unrepresented petitioner Roger Frye Largo 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.
Frye Largo’s petition is thin on details. He claims to have been in “immigration
custody” since “June” “2025.” (ECF 1, at 1.) But he doesn’t explain the circumstances or
basis for that custody. (See generally id.) Instead, he alleges constitutional injury because
his “detention is arbitrary and prolonged” and “violating due process” “[u]nder Zadvydas
v. Davis.” (Id. at 1.)
Despite the lack of detail, this claim is not frivolous. If his immigration-court
proceedings are ongoing, then his case warrants an answer because some courts have
concluded that prolonged detention can violate due process even for those subject to
Case 3:26-cv-00887-AGS-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0887-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
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 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.”). And if he has a final order of removal,
then his roughly eight months of detention could warrant release. See Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (establishing a procedure for challenging the constitutionality of
post-removal-order detention that lasts beyond a “presumptively reasonable period” of “six
months”).
Thus, the government must answer. By February 23, 2026, respondents must file
their return. Petitioner may file any reply by March 2, 2026.
Dated: February 14, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00887-AGS-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2