Sow v. Larose et al

1 26-cv-1115-AGS-MMP
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
Pape SOW,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LaROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1115-AGS-MMP
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Pape Sow 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 2022, Sow—a “Type I diabetic 35-year-old citizen of Senegal”—“first entered
the United States” and “was released on his own recognizance.” (ECF 1, at 2.) A few years
later, on “October 14, 2025,” he was “ordered removed” for failing to pay application fees.
(Id.) Initially, Sow remained in the United States while pursuing asylum. Yet he became
“a victim of a crime,” in which he was “kidnapped” and involuntarily brought to “Tijuana,”
Mexico. (Id. at 19.) Once there, he was “robbed of his vehicle” and, after regaining
consciousness, re-entered the United States on “October 28, 2025”—“again seeking to
pursue his asylum claim.” (Id. at 20.) Upon re-entry, however, immigration officials
“detained” him, and he remains in custody. (Id. at 10.) In addition, in January 2026, Sow
Case 3:26-cv-01115-AGS-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-1115-AGS-MMP
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
“filed a new asylum application,” and on “February 11, 2026,” an immigration judge
“ordered” him “removed to Uganda.” (Id. at 2–3.) Sow has appealed that decision. (Id.
at 2.)
Sow requests that “[t]his Court [] not consider [his] involuntary departure as an
interruption to his continuous presence in the United States,” and he asserts that
respondents “abused their discretion” in detaining him because “there have been no
changes to [his] facts or circumstances that support his detention.” (Id. at 23, 26); see also
8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e). His continued detention, he argues, violates his “due process rights.”
(ECF 1, at 27.) Among other concerns, Sow alleges that his “physician recommends
checking his blood sugar every two to three hours” to manage his diabetes, but “while
detained he has been restricted to testing only twice daily at 5:00am and 10:00pm.” (Id.
at 20.) He asserts that the “meals” are “inadequate” for managing his health condition. (Id.)
This challenge warrants an answer. Petitioner raises several potential grounds for
relief, including unlawful revocation of parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and
unlawful mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. It’s unclear how his detention, these
statutes, and the kidnapping incident interplay, but his claims do not justify summary
dismissal.
So, by March 3, 2026, the government must answer. Any reply by the petitioner is
due March 10, 2026, and the Court will hold a hearing on March 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Dated: February 24, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01115-AGS-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2