Prokopev v. Larose et al

1
25-cv-3441-JES-MSB
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
NIKITA PROKOPEV,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; GREGORY
ARCHAMBEAULT; KRISTI NOEM;
and PAMELA BONDI,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3441-JES-MSB
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
(2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS;
(3) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; AND
(4) STAYING REMOVAL OF
PETITIONER TO PRESERVE
JURISDICTION
[ECF Nos. 1, 2]
Before the Court is Petitioner Nikita Propokev’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner also
filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests he has no
means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Case 3:25-cv-03441-JES-MSB Document 5 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3441-JES-MSB
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
Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.
Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition
should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 15, 2025. Petitioner MAY
FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by December 17, 2025.
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders
otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D.
Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while
determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is
pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412,
ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary
restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their
agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation
with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending
further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding
that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to
the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-
CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the
Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 10, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-03441-JES-MSB Document 5 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2