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 DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 1]
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. Pursuant to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause (ECF No. 5), Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 6. To date, Petitioner has
not filed a traverse. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a native of the Russian Federation, and presented himself to the United
States border on November 20, 2024, seeking admission. ECF No. 1 at 4. He was put into
removal proceedings at that time. ECF No. 6-1. He was detained and transferred to Otay
Mesa Detention Center, where he remains to date. ECF No. 1 at 4. While detained,
Petitioner filed an asylum application and proceeded through the removal process. On June
Case 3:25-cv-03441-JES-MSB Document 8 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

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
2, 2025, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his asylum application and entered an order
of removal against him. ECF No. 6-2. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on June 23, 2025. ECF No. 1 at 5. The BIA denied his appeal
on November 28, 2025. ECF No. 6-3.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of
habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas
corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in
that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301
(2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview
of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see
also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
III. DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that, with the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s appeal, his removal
order is now final as of November 28, 2025. ECF No. 6 at 1. Thus, Respondents argue that
they are within their statutorily mandated 90-day period of detention provided by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a), and Petitioner’s challenge to his detention is premature. Id.
The Court agrees with Respondents. Petitioner proceeds pro se and at the time he
mailed and signed his petition, on November 21, 2025, it appears the BIA’s denial had not
yet been issued. See ECF No. 1 at 8. However, the BIA’s denial now changes the situation.
Respondents submitted their return to the petition on December 15, 2025, and since then,
the Court has not received a traverse or any other filing from Petitioner challenging the
finality of the removal order. See ECF No. 6. Thus, at this time and with the information
Case 3:25-cv-03441-JES-MSB Document 8 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
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
in front of it, the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)
because there is now no pending case and a final order of removal against him. The BIA
issued its decision on November 28, 2025, starting the 90-day removal period, which is
currently still in effect. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A)-(B).
Accordingly, at this time, the Court must DENY Petitioner’s petition. The denial,
however, is without prejudice to Petitioner refiling should his situation change, for
example, by his filing a further appeal that would move his removal proceeding back to
pending or should he be subject to prolonged detention after this 90-day period expires, if
Respondents are unable to successfully remove him during that time.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03441-JES-MSB Document 8 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3