Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-0850-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
Mohammad Amin DAWLATZAI,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher J. LaROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0850-AGS-DDL
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
Unrepresented petitioner Mohammad Dawlatzai 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.
Dawlatzai’s petition is thin on details. He claims to have been in “immigration
custody” since “June/05/2025.” (ECF 1, at 4.) But he doesn’t explain the circumstances or
basis for that custody. (See generally id.) Instead, he alleges constitutional injury from
“[b]eing detained by ICE while applying for Aslyum” for “close to eight months with [a]
high possibility of further long extended detainment,” which he says violates his rights
under the “Fifth Amendment due process clause.” (Id. at 2, 6.)
Despite the lack of detail, this claim is not frivolous. After all, some courts have
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,
Case 3:26-cv-00850-BJC-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0850-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
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 answer.
By February 20, 2026, respondents must file their return. Petitioner may file any
traverse by February 25, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on March 3, 2026, at
4:00 p.m. Respondents’ counsel must coordinate petitioner’s participation in oral argument
by videoconference or, if that’s unavailable, by telephone. The government will ensure that
a member of the facility staff remains with petitioner during the proceeding to assist with
any unforeseen issues.
Dated: February 13, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00850-BJC-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2