Southern District of New York • 1:26-cv-00664

#1

Jan 21, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Vladislav Eduardovich Abramou.(nas ) [Transferred from New York Northern on 1/26/2026.] (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#2

Jan 21, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Vladislav Eduardovich Abramou(nas ) [Transferred from New York Northern on 1/26/2026.] (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#3

Jan 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief, pursuant to § 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging his unlawful custody in Orange County Correctional Facility. "Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should... file the petition in the district of confinement." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). Orange County Correctional Facility is located in Orange County, New York, in the Southern District of New York ("Southern District"). See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). Consequently, the action shall be transferred to the Southern District and, given the significant liberty interests at stake and the time-sensitivity of petitioner's claims, this Court waives the seven-day waiting period customarily afforded under the Local Rules and respectfully directs the Clerk to effectuate the transfer as soon as possible. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric on January 26, 2026. {text order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas ) [Transferred from New York Northern on 1/26/2026.] (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 26, 2026

CASE TRANSFERRED IN from the United States District Court - District of New York Northern; Case Number: 9:26-cv-00125. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket entries received. (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#5

Jan 26, 2026

STANDING ORDER IN RE CASES FILED BY PRO SE PLAINTIFFS (See 24-MISC-127 Standing Order filed March 18, 2024). To ensure that all cases heard in the Southern District of New York are handled promptly and efficiently, all parties must keep the court apprised of any new contact information. It is a party's obligation to provide an address for service; service of court orders cannot be accomplished if a party does not update the court when a change of address occurs. Accordingly, all self-represented litigants are hereby ORDERED to inform the court of each change in their address or electronic contact information. Parties may consent to electronic service to receive notifications of court filings by email, rather than relying on regular mail delivery. Parties may also ask the court for permission to file documents electronically. Forms, including instructions for consenting to electronic service and requesting permission to file documents electronically, may be found by clicking on the hyperlinks in this order, or by accessing the forms on the courts website, nysd.uscourts.gov/forms. The procedures that follow apply only to cases filed by pro se plaintiffs. If the court receives notice from the United States Postal Service that an order has been returned to the court, or otherwise receives information that the address of record for a self-represented plaintiff is no longer valid, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this order. Such order will be sent to the plaintiffs last known address and will also be viewable on the court's electronic docket. A notice directing the parties' attention to this order shall be docketed (and mailed to any self-represented party that has appeared and has not consented to electronic service) upon the opening of each case or miscellaneous matter that is classified as pro se in the court's records. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/18/2024) (vba) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#6

Jan 26, 2026

STAY OF REMOVAL AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby ORDERED that all parties appear for a conference with the Court on February 18, 2026 at 11 a.m. in Courtroom 905 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. Respondents shall submit a letter, no later than January 28, 2026 indicating whether the conference is necessary and addressing how the Court should handle this Petition. In the letter, Respondents should address: (1) whether Petitioner was, as the Petition alleges, see ECF No. 1, 2, located in the Southern District of New York at the time that the Petition was filed; (2) Petitioner's A-number, current place of detention, and a contact person who can facilitate prospective counsel's access to Petitioner; (3) the statutory provision(s) under which Respondents assert the authority to detain Petitioner; (4) whether there is any basis to distinguish this case from this Court's decisions in J.M.P. v. Arteta, No. 25 Civ. 4987, 2025 WL 2614688 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2025) and J.M.P. v. Arteta, No. 25 Civ. 4987 2025 WL 2984913 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2025), or from any other decision of this Court. If Respondents take the position that the outcome of this Petition is controlled by J.M.P. or any other decisions of this Court, then the submission may take the form of a letter conceding that point and indicating whether Respondents would consent to issuance of the writ subject to preservation of Respondents' arguments for appeal; (5) a copy of any final order of removal; and (6) any information regarding the procedural posture of any pending Department of Homeland Security or Executive Office for Immigration Review proceedings. If Respondents do not take the position that the outcome of this Petition is controlled by a prior decision of this Court, Respondents are further ORDERED to Show Cause why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted by January 30, 2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner shall have an opportunity to reply, if necessary, by February 13, 2026.To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., Loc. 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction")2; Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 04 Civ. 7377, 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a district court "may order that a petitioner's deportation be stayed... when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court's jurisdiction of the case"); Khalil v. Joyce, No. 25 Civ. 1935, ECF No. 9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (barring the government from removing petitioner from the United States until the Court could address his claim); cf. Michael v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal). In light of Petitioner's interests in participating in further proceedings before this Court and in obtaining adequate access to legal counsel through these proceedings, it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall not be transferred except to a facility within this District, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey absent further order of this Court. See Ozturk v. Trump, No. 25 Civ. 374, 2025 WL 1145250, at *15 (D. Vt. Apr. 18, 2025) (ordering petitioner's transfer from Louisiana to Vermont due, in part, to her pending habeas petition), stay and mandamus denied, Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 403 (2d Cir. 2025); Westley v. Harper, No. 25 Civ. 229, ECF No. 7 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2025) (restraining respondents "from (a) attempting to remove petitioner from the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to any location outside [the] district, and (b) removing petitioner from the United States"); Sillah v. Barr, No. 19 Civ. 1747, ECF No. 6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2019) (enjoining respondents from transferring defendant outside of the New York City area while defendant's habeas petition was pending); Campbell v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, No. 20 Civ. 22999, ECF No. 13 (S.D. Fl. July 26, 2020) (granting a stay of petitioner's transfer and prohibiting respondent "from transferring Petitioner to another detention facility during the pendency of the stay"); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (empowering courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"). All counsel are required to register promptly as filing users on ECF. All counsel must familiarize themselves with the Court's Individual Rules, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho. Absent leave of Court obtained by letter-motion filed before the conference, all pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel. Counsel for Respondents is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner, and to file proof of service on the docket. Pro se parties are encouraged to consent to electronic service via ECF as it would ensure that the pro se party would receive documents in its case promptly by email instead of by regular mail. The consent form, along with instructions on how to fill it out, can be found at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service pro-se-cases. Unless and until a pro se party consents to receive electronic service, however, counsel are required to serve that pro se party with copies of documents filed with the Court and to file affidavits of such service with the Court thereafter. If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties are not required to appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is filed on the docket prior to the date of the conference, using the appropriate ECF Filing Event. See SDNY ECF Rules & Instructions §§ 13.17-13.19 & App'x A, available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. In accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, requests for an extension or adjournment may be made only by letter-motion filed on ECF and must be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The written submission must state (1) the original date(s); (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension; (3) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; (4) whether the adversary consents and, if not, the reasons given by the adversary for refusing to consent; and (5) the date of the parties' next scheduled appearance before the Court. Unless counsel are notified that the conference has been adjourned, it will be held as scheduled. ( Status Conference set for 2/18/2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 905, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Dale E. Ho.), ( Replies due by 2/13/2026.) (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 1/26/2026) (tro) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

Jan 26, 2026

CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE - TRANSFER CASE: This case is assigned to: Judge Dale E. Ho. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(vba)

Jan 26, 2026

NOTE TO OUT OF STATE ATTORNEYS: Please visit the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/ for information regarding admission to the S.D.N.Y. Bar and the CM/ECF Rules & Filing Instructions. (vba)

Jan 26, 2026

Order

Jan 26, 2026

Case Opening Initial Assignment Notice - Transfer Case

Jan 26, 2026

Note Regarding Service on Self-Represented Party

Jan 26, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT NOTE: For each electronic filing made in a case involving a self-represented party who has not consented to electronic service, the filing party must serve the document on such self-represented party in a manner permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2) (other than through the ECF system) and file proof of service for each document so served. Please see Rule 9.2 of the courts ECF Rules & Instructions for further information..(vba)

Jan 26, 2026

Note to Out of State Attorneys

Jan 26, 2026

Case Designated ECF. (vba)

Jan 26, 2026

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang is designated to handle matters that may be referred in this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (vba)

Jan 27, 2026

Mailing Receipt

#7

Jan 28, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Jan 28, 2026

Letter

#9

Jan 28, 2026

Extension of Time

#10

Jan 29, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

Jan 30, 2026

Mailing Receipt

#11

Feb 03, 2026

Memorandum of Law in Opposition (non-motion)

#12

Feb 03, 2026

Response (non-motion)

#13

Feb 03, 2026

Declaration in Opposition (non-motion)

#14

Feb 18, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

#15

Feb 19, 2026

Certificate of Service Other

Feb 19, 2026

Mailing Receipt

#16

Mar 06, 2026

Letter

#17

Mar 09, 2026

Order

Mar 10, 2026

Mailing Receipt

#18

Mar 13, 2026

Letter

#19

Mar 17, 2026

Certificate of Service Other

#20

Mar 17, 2026

Order for Appearance of Pro Bono Counsel

Mar 18, 2026

Mailing Receipt

#21

Mar 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance of Pro Bono Counsel

Mar 20, 2026

Transmission to Office of Pro Se Litigation

#22

Mar 23, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

#23

Mar 31, 2026

Letter

#24

Apr 03, 2026

Letter

#25

Apr 10, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

Apr 10, 2026

Status Conference