Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01171

#1

Feb 23, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Field Office Director, ICE San Diego, Christopher LaRose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 167283.), filed by Adam Magomedov. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt, # 3 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1171-JO-DEB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case. (Adam Magomedov)(anh) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#2

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 25, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, March 11, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for Thursday, March 19, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing. The hearing will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. The parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM on the day before the hearing to determine whether such an order has issued and the hearing has been vacated.The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [Dkt. 1] to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/25/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Feb 26, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Mar 11, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Mar 12, 2026

NOTICE of Change of Hearing: The Oral Argument Hearing set for 3/19/2026 is vacated and is reset for 3/26/2026 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Notice of Change of Hearing

#6

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Jadam Magomedov, a Russian citizen who came to the United States to seek asylum, seeks habeas relief from his prolonged detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1. He also challenges the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") third-country removal procedures on grounds that they deny him adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek protection before removal to a third country where he may face persecution or torture. Id. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On January 15, 2024, Petitioner entered the United States to seek asylum. Dkt. 4-1 P. 3. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") determined that he was inadmissible for lacking valid entry documents and initiated removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Id. On November 12, 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") ordered Petitioner removed but granted withholding of removal to Russia, the only country designated in the removal order. Id. P. 4. Because the IJ granted withholding relief as to Russia, Department of Homeland Security has sought a third country for Petitioner's removal. Id. P. 6. In the meantime, Petitioner has remained detained for over four months since the final removal order.2. Jurisdiction: For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality of his current detention. As courts have consistently found, a challenge to continued detention pending removal does not intrude on the government's discretion to decide "when" or "whether" to execute a removal order and falls outside § 1252(g)'s scope. See Phakeokoth v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-02817-RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 3124341, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025); Esmaeili v. Noem, No. 26-CV-0203-GPC-JLB, 2026 WL 240661 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026).3. Claim One (Zadvydas): The Court finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates his substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (once a noncitizen shows there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, continued detention is unlawful unless the government rebuts that showing). Petitioner has been detained for more than four months since the November 12, 2025 final removal order, and the government has made almost no progress toward removal to a third country. Dkt. 4-1 P. 6. ERO San Diego Field Office submitted two requests for Petitioner's third country removal on January 14 and February 20, 2026, but no third country has been identified. See id. Given the government's failure to identify a third country, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown--and the government has not rebutted--that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. For the same reasons, the Court also concludes that Petitioner has rebutted the Zadvydas presumption that detention may be reasonable for six months following a final removal order, as the government has not identified a third country--the first step in effectuating removal--despite detaining Petitioner for over four months after his removal order. See Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 994 (C.D. Cal. 2018), (explaining that the "Supreme Court in Zadvydas outlined a 'guide' for approaching these detention challenges, 533 U.S. at 700-701, not a prohibition on claims challenging detention less than six months"); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 ("Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits...."). Therefore, Petitioner's continued detention is unlawful under Zadvydas, and he is entitled to immediate release.4. Claim Two (Third Country Removal): The Court finds that Petitioner's third country removal claim is ripe for review. ICE has two outstanding requests to identify a third country for Petitioner and is actively searching for one, placing him at a concrete, particularized and actual risk of eventual third country removal under current DHS procedures. See Geo Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 753 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)) (to satisfy Article III standing, an injury "must be 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical'"). Further, for the reasons stated in Esmail v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-08325-WLH-RAO, 2025 WL 3030589, *6-*7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) and Kumar v. Wamsley, No. C25-2055-KKE, --- F.Supp3d. ---, 2025 WL 3204724, *4-*5 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2025), the Court finds that current DHS third-country removal procedures violate Petitioner's due process rights because they (1) do not require DHS to affirmatively ask whether he fears removal to the designated third country and (2) permit removal within 24 hours of providing notice of the designated third country. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 7.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/24/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#7

Mar 24, 2026

Order

#8

Mar 24, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Mar 25, 2026

Notice (Other)