Shapan v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
25-cv-3817-AGS-VET
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
MD Nurulhuda SHAPAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center,
Respondent.
Case No.: 25-cv-3817-AGS-VET
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
Petitioner MD Nurulhuda Shapan, who is self-represented, 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 “January 8, 2025,” petitioner, a “native” and “citizen” of “Bangladesh,” “came
to the U.S.” (ECF 1, at 6, 9.) He was caught the same day, after avoiding “inspect[ion] by
an Immigration Officer,” and has been detained “since.” (Id. at 6, 12.) He thereafter
asserted a credible fear of prosecution and was moved from expedited removal proceedings
to normal removal proceedings. (Id. at 9.) He asks that, after nearly a year of custody, the
Court “grant [him] parol[e] or bond.” (Id. at 7.)
But Farah does not identify any particular claim for relief or any authority this Court
may have to grant his request. (See generally id.) Given this, the Court struggles to predict
how likely Farah’s petition is to succeed. Yet it is not frivolous. After all, some courts have
Case 3:25-cv-03817-AGS-VET Document 2 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3817-AGS-VET
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
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,
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 January 16, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by petitioner
must be filed by January 23, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the petition on
January 30, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.
Dated: January 2, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03817-AGS-VET Document 2 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2