Kovalchuk v. McGregor et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mykola Kovalchuk,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher McGregor, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01748-PHX-KML (MTM)
ORDER
The court granted a temporary restraining order on March 15, 2026. (Doc. 5.) That
order is set to expire at 10:00 p.m. on March 29, 2026. A temporary restraining order may
be extended for an additional fourteen-day period upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(d). Good cause exists to extend the temporary restraining order to allow the
court time to review the parties’ positions and issue a reasoned decision on the request for
a preliminary injunction. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258,
301 (1947) (extension appropriate because “[t]here was then in progress argument on
defendants’ motion”); Dellinger v. Bessent, 768 F. Supp. 3d 30, 33 (D.D.C. 2025) (finding
good cause “so that the status quo will be preserved for the brief period of time it takes to
complete the written opinion on the . . . motion for preliminary injunction”).
Respondents argue petitioner is not entitled to relief because “his claims seeking
additional procedures prior to [his] removal to a third country . . . are subsumed within the
issues being activity litigated in D.V.D.” (Doc. 11 at 7.) The United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit stayed the final judgment issued in D.V.D., but that court did not
Case 2:26-cv-01748-KML--MTM Document 15 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
provide any reasoning when doing so. The absence of an explanation means the stay may
be a product of issues unrelated to the viability of individual habeas petitions, such as issues
involving the propriety of class certification. In these circumstances, it may be
inappropriate to prohibit petitioner from seeking individualized relief in this court.
Respondents must file a supplement explaining if they oppose issuance of a preliminary
injunction limited to the time period pending a decision by the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit in the D.V.D. matter.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Expedite (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. The temporary
restraining order issued on March 15, 2025 is EXTENDED an additional fourteen days
from its current expiration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than April 1, 2026, respondents shall file a
statement as set forth above.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01748-KML--MTM Document 15 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 2