Kazanhan v. LaRose et al

1 26-cv-0873-AGS-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
Kadri KAZANHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0873-AGS-SBC
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Kadri Kazanhan seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is
sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. 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.
In November 2023, Kazanhan, a “Kurdish man from Turkey,” crossed into the
United States, and respondents “granted” him “conditional parole by release on his own
recognizance.” (ECF 1, at 2.) Years later, in December 2025, he was “making an early
morning delivery when he met an enlisted man who asked him to drive him home due to
the inclement weather.” (Id. at 3.) He “drove” the man to the “Camp Pendleton Marine
Base” entrance; “the officer” at the gate “asked to see his identification documents”; and,
because Kazanhan “did not have a green card,” he was told to “pull[] over” for “some
secondary questioning.” (Id.) “Eventually ICE arrived” and detained him, and he’s been in
custody ever since. (Id.)
Case 3:26-cv-00873-AGS-SBC Document 2 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-0873-AGS-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
Kazanhan asserts that his detention violates, among other things, his “Due Process”
rights and is “is unlawful ab initio.” (ECF 1, at 17, 21.) Specifically, he argues that his
“detention without a prior individualized determination” is unconstitutional. (Id. at 22.)
This challenge merits an answer. District courts have ordered petitioners released on
similar grounds. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, __ F. Supp. 3d. __, No. 25-cv-06487-
PCP, 2025 WL 2935630, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025); (“[Petitioners] have demonstrated
a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment entitles them to a hearing before ICE may re-detain them.”); Salazar v. Casey,
No. 25-cv-2784 JLS (VET), 2025 WL 3063629, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (granting
habeas relief because respondents failed to provide “proper notice, reasoning, and a
pre-deprivation hearing,” and thus “detained Petitioner . . . in violation of the Due Process
Clause”); Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 24-cv-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *7 (E.D. N.Y.
Oct. 6, 2025) (“When Respondents placed [petitioner] under arrest without notice and an
opportunity to be heard,” and “then imprisoned him . . . without a pre-deprivation bond
hearing, they violated his established right to procedural due process.”).
By Wednesday, February 18, 2026, the government must answer the petition. Any
reply by petitioner is due Monday, February 23, 2026, and the Court will hold a hearing
on February 27, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Dated: February 12, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00873-AGS-SBC Document 2 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2