Fathi v. LaRose et al

1
26-cv-0621-AGS-DDL
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
Yaghoub FATHI,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LaROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0621-AGS-DDL
ORDER SCREENING PETITION
AND REQUIRING RESPONSE
Petitioner Yaghoub Fathi seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging his immigration detention. 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 court to apply 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 “December 11, 2024,” petitioner, an “ethnic Kurd born in Iraq but a citizen of
Iran,” “crossed into the United States” and “was taken into [immigration] custody.”
(ECF 1, at 7.) He has been detained at the “Otay Mesa Detention Center” ever since. (Id.)
His “asylum application” is pending, and he claims that, in the interim, his “over a year”
of detention violates his “due process” rights.” (Id. at 2, 9.)
Some courts have concluded that prolonged detention for “arriving aliens” under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) can violate due process, so this claim is not frivolous or incredible. 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
Case 3:26-cv-00621-AGS-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0621-AGS-DDL
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
process.”). Thus, the government must respond. By February 9, 2026, respondents must
answer the petition. Petitioner may reply by February 17, 2026. The Court will hold oral
argument on February 20, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
Dated: February 2, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00621-AGS-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2