Lukina v. Noem et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ekaterina Lukina,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01964-PHX-KML (MTM)
ORDER
Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration
detention. (Doc. 1.)1
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia who entered the United States in January
2023 seeking asylum. After DHS issued a Notice to Appear, Petitioner was released into
the United States while her claims were considered. On or about April 9, 2025, an
immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s claims, but she remained released on the
Intensive Supervision Appearance Program and was told her next check-in would be during
the summer. (Doc. 1 at 6, 53.) But on or about April 28, 2025, she was taken into
immigration custody despite not violating any conditions of supervision and “without any
individualized explanation, justification, or identified triggering event.” (Doc. 1 at 6, 53.)
Petitioner appealed the IJ’s denial, and in August 2025 the BIA remanded the case
to the IJ for further consideration. Shortly thereafter, the IJ reaffirmed its decision, and
1 Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Expedite (Doc. 2) and a Motion for Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 3). Because the Court is directing Respondents to promptly show cause why
the Petition should not be granted, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to preliminary
relief at this juncture. Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion without prejudice.
Case 2:26-cv-01964-KML--MTM Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
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 appealed again. That appeal remains pending. Petitioner has twice requested that
she be granted parole while the appeal is pending, and in each instance DHS has declined
to do so in its discretion. As of the date of this Order, Petitioner remains in custody.
Numerous courts have concluded that individuals like Petitioner, who were released
from immigration detention, are entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing prior to any rearrest
or detention as a matter of due process. See, e.g., J.C.E.P. v. Wofford, CV-25-01559-EFB
(HC), 2025 WL 3268273, *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025) (collecting cases); Ramirez Clavijo
v. Kaiser, CV-25-06248-BLF, 2025 WL 2419263, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025)
(“Petitioner thus has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that she is
entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker prior to any re-arrest
or detention under the Due Process Clause.”); Singh v. Andrews, CV-25-00801-KES-SKO
(HC), 2025 WL 1918679, at *8 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2025) (“On balance, the Mathews
factors show that petitioner is entitled to process, and that process should have been
provided before petitioner was detained.”).
Respondents must show cause why the Petition should not be granted. Any response
must be supported by documentary evidence including, if applicable, affidavits by
individuals with personal knowledge of the factual statements made therein and signed
under penalty of perjury.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Markwayne Mullin is substituted for Respondent Kristi Noem.
(2) Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite (Doc. 2) and Motion for Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 3) are denied.
(3) Counsel for Petitioner must immediately serve the Petition (Doc. 1) and a
copy of this Order on Respondents.
(4) If not already issued, the Clerk of Court must issue any properly completed
summonses.
(5) The Clerk of Court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this Order
and the Petition (Doc. 1) to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the
Case 2:26-cv-01964-KML--MTM Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
attention of Melissa Kroeger at melissa.kroeger@usdoj.gov, Lon Leavitt at
lon.leavitt@usdoj.gov, Theo Nickerson at Theo.Nickerson2@usdoj.gov, Dina
Anagnopoulos at Dina.Anagnopoulos@usdoj.gov, and Mary Finlon at
Mary.Finlon@usdoj.gov.
(6) Respondents must show cause no later than April 2, 2026, why the Petition
should not be granted.
(7) Petitioner may file a reply no later than April 6, 2026.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01964-KML--MTM Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 3