Sakoyan v. Noem et al

- 1 - 25cv3406
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
HRACHYA SAKOYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 25-cv-03406-BAS-MSB
ORDER:
(1) 	REQUIRING THE
GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1);
(2) 	SETTING HEARING ON
PETITION; AND
(3) 	GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL (ECF No. 4)
Petitioner Hrachya Sakoyan filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner claims that he is being detained
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of immigration laws and
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 	(Id.) 	In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion to
Seal Exhibit A to his Petition. (ECF No. 4.)
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at
this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary
Case 3:25-cv-03406-BAS-MSB Document 8 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 25cv3406
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
dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,
palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 	Therefore, the Court will order the
Government to respond to the Petition.
Further, the Court finds it appropriate to seal the requested information. 	A party
seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of
access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The
showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed
relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If the filing meets
this requirement, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. Here, because Exhibit A
is part of the Petition, the relevant court filing is “more than tangentially related to the
merits of the case.” 	See id. 	Even so, the Court finds compelling reasons exist to seal the
exhibit, as it reveals sensitive information about Petitioner’s claim for withholding of
removal and the basis of persecution. 	See Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1096
(E.D. Cal. 2025) (sealing similar information concerning an asylum application).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than December
12, 2025. 	The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and
must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the
Petition.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than December
19, 2025.
3. 	The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on January 16, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.
for a hearing on the Petition.
4. 	The Court confirms appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as
counsel for Petitioner under Chief Judge Order No. 134 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2025).
5. 	The Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 4). 	The Clerk of Court
shall accept and file under seal Exhibit A to the Petition (ECF No. 5).
Case 3:25-cv-03406-BAS-MSB Document 8 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 25cv3406
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
6. 	The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 4, 2025
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-03406-BAS-MSB Document 8 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3