Markov v. Larose et al

1
25-CV-3811 JLS (SBC)
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
DMITRII MARKOV,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Field
Office Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, San Diego Field
Office, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-CV-3811 JLS (SBC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 10)
Presently before the Court is Dmitrii Markov’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 10). 	Also before the Court is
Respondents’ Response to Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF
No. 12). 	Petitioner did not file a Traverse. 	See generally id. 	For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a Russian national, alleges that he has been detained by the United States
Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since January 13, 2024, when he
entered the United States through the CBP One Program. Pet. ¶ 1; Ret. at 1. ICE thereafter
Case 3:25-cv-03811-JLS-SBC Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
25-CV-3811 JLS (SBC)
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
initiated removal proceedings, and Petitioner applied for asylum. Ret. at 1–2. Petitioner
contends that his merits proceedings have been rescheduled on twelve occasions. Pet. ¶¶
4, 6. The original date for Petitioner’s final merits hearing was December 2, 2025. Id. The
hearing is now set for May 11, 2026. 	Id. ¶ 4. 	Petitioner alleges his continued detention,
now over thirteen months, without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality
Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See generally id.
LEGAL STANDARD
A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the
legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of
his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial
body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the
court of appeals. 	See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat.
231, § 106(a)). 	However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising
independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—
federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 	Nadarajah v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal.
2018) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
“Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding
the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes
unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025
WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). 	However, “[n]early all district courts that
have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that
prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing,
will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” 	Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d
1005 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (cleaned up)
Case 3:25-cv-03811-JLS-SBC Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
25-CV-3811 JLS (SBC)
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
(collecting cases). 	In determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts
evaluate factors including “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future
detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the
government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts
also consider the conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. See, e.g., Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-
BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025).
The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing.
Petitioner’s length of detention without a bond hearing, now over thirteen months, weighs
in Petitioner’s favor. Courts have found detention of similar lengths without a bond hearing
weighs towards a finding that detention has become unreasonable. 	See, e.g., Guatam v.
Corr. Corp of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 25846, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5,
2026) (finding that one-year detention weighed in favor of granting a bond hearing); Sadeqi
v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (finding that eleven month detention without a bond hearing “absent meaningful
rebuttal by [r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due process). 	The length of
detention therefore favors Petitioner.
As to the likely duration of future detention, Petitioner argues that his “detention no
longer has a reasonably predictable endpoint” since his final merits hearing has been
rescheduled on several occasions. 	Pet. at 5. 	Respondents argue that after the schedule
merits hearing, “the pathway to removal will be clear.” Ret. at 9. The Court disagrees, as
the outcome of Petitioner’s merits proceedings is unknown, and any appeals to follow may
take several years. 	See Guatam, 2026 WL 25846, at *5 	(“[A] removal order may not
become final until after the appeals Petitioner could file, to both the Board of Immigration
Appeals and Ninth Circuit.”); Prabhpreet v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-393-JES-SBC, 2026 WL
310192, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (“Petitioner has an upcoming hearing . . . but
Petitioner alleges that he has had other scheduled hearings that have been moved and there
is also no indication that this hearing will even result in a final decision in his removal
Case 3:25-cv-03811-JLS-SBC Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
25-CV-3811 JLS (SBC)
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
proceedings.”); Zarei v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-0308-GPC-MMP, 2026 WL 252585, at *5
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (finding that likely duration of future detention weighed in favor
of petitioner with upcoming merits hearing).
Delay in removal proceedings is neutral since the record, as presented to the Court,
does not indicate any delay by Respondents or Petitioner. 	See Rash v. LaRose, No.
26V0008-LL-DEB, 2026 WL 249324, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026).
In balancing these factors and affording greater weight to the length of Petitioner’s
detention, the Court finds that Petitioner’s allegations establish that his detention is
unreasonably prolonged. 	See id. at *4 (“The total length of detention is considered the
most important factor.”) (citing Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1118 (W.D.
Wash. 2019)).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 10), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days before a
neutral immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of establishing by
clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk
if released. 	If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be
released from Respondents’ custody. The Parties SHALL FILE a Joint Status Report by
March 16, 2026, informing the Court of the outcome of the hearing. As this concludes the
litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03811-JLS-SBC Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4