Rumiantseva v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
25-cv-3844-AGS-DEB
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
Ksenia RUMIANTSEVA,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent.
Case No.: 25-cv-3844-AGS-DEB
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
Petitioner Ksenia Rumiantseva seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to free her from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.)
At this stage, she 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.
On “June 18, 2025,” petitioner was ordered removed to Russia. (ECF 1, at 6, 13.)
She “appealed,” and her appeal remains pending. (Id. at 6.) She claims that she has been
“detained since September 22, 2024.” (Id.) She asserts that she has been denied “an
individualized custody review to which she is entitled under ICE policy,” although she
identifies no such policy. (Id.) That denial, and her continued custody, she argues violates
her due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Although thin on critical details—including how she came to be in immigration
Case 3:25-cv-03844-AGS-DEB Document 2 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3844-AGS-DEB
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
custody in the first place, which is necessary to determine what statutory detention scheme
she’s subject to—petitioner’s claims are 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, 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
respond.
By January 16, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by petitioner
must be filed by January 23, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the petition on
January 30, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.
Dated: January 2, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03844-AGS-DEB Document 2 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2