Dobrovkin v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
26-cv-217-BJC-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
DMITIRII DOBROVKIN,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LAROSE, Senior Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-217-BJC-MSB
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON THE WRIT AND
PROHIBITING TRANSFER OF
PETITIONER
[ECF No. 1]
On January 14, 2026, Dmitrii Dobrovkin (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. 	ECF No. 1. 	Petitioner does not identify his country of citizenship. 	See
generally id. 	He alleges, however, that he entered the United States on September 25,
2025, and was taken into immigration custody immediately upon arrival. 	Id. at 6. 	On
December 10, 2025, Petitioner appeared for his initial master calendar hearing before the
immigration court. 	Id. 	His individual merits hearing is currently scheduled for April 16,
2026. Id. Petitioner further alleges that he entered the United States with his wife, who is
currently pregnant and experiencing a high-risk pregnancy. 	Id. 	Her expected due date is
January 20, 2026. Id.
The Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the
Court to hold the hearing and provide a reasoned decision on the pending motion. See E-
C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025)
(finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest,
Case 3:26-cv-00217-BJC-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-217-BJC-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
detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s
motion for injunctive relief); A.M. v. Larose et al, No. 3:25-CV-1412, ECF No. 2 (S.D.
Cal. June 4, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the
plaintiffs from the Southern District of California to preserve the court’s jurisdiction).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	The Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and
potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues
presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly,
the Court 	CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS 	Federal Defenders 	of San
Diego, 	Inc. 	as 	counsel 	effectively 	immediately. 	The 	Court 	ORDERS
Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by January 30, 2026 to
demonstrate his financial eligibility. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d
1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b).
2. 	Respondents shall file a response to the writ of habeas corpus
no later than close of business on January 23, 2026.
3. 	Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on January 30,
2026.
4. 	Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons
acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED
from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending
further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to hold
a hearing and provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00217-BJC-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2