Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01335

#1

Mar 02, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Field Office Director Ice San Diego Field Office, Warden ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 167486.), filed by Suren Pinachyan. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Receipt, # 2 Info Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1335-JO-JLB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening] (mef) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#2

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 6, 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 Thursday, March 19, 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 Monday, March 30, 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, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before to the hearing.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 3/6/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Mar 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Thomas Merritt on behalf of Field Office Director Ice San Diego Field Office, Warden (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Merritt, Thomas)Attorney Thomas Merritt added to party Field Office Director Ice San Diego Field Office(pty:res), Attorney Thomas Merritt added to party Warden(pty:res) (rxc). (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#4

Mar 19, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Field Office Director Ice San Diego Field Office, Warden. (Merritt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#5

Mar 20, 2026

Mail Returned

#6

Mar 20, 2026

Mail Returned

#7

Mar 20, 2026

Certificate of Service

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a habeas petition, alleging that he is unlawfully detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center located in this District. Dkt. 1. Respondents filed a return to the petition stating that Petitioner was transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana on March 5, 2026, after submitting his habeas petition to this Court. Dkt. 4. Jurisdiction over a habeas petition depends on the petitioner's location at the time of filing. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35, 443 (2004). A subsequent transfer after the petition is filed does not divest a court of jurisdiction. See id. at 440-41 (citing Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 304-06 (1944)). Because Petitioner was transferred after filing a habeas petition in this District, the Court finds that it retains jurisdiction over the petition despite the transfer. Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the petition, along with the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary to adjudicate the petition, no later than Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. In their response, Respondents are further ORDERED to inform the Court whether they will comply with orders issued by the Court regardless of Petitioner's current location, given that the Court acquired jurisdiction over the habeas petition on March 2, 2026, when Petitioner was detained in this District and filed the petition with the Court.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/23/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

Mar 23, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Mar 25, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#10

Mar 25, 2026

Certificate of Service

#11

Mar 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Suren Pinachyan, 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. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On November 13, 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") ordered Petitioner removed but granted withholding relief as to Russia, the only country designated in the removal order. Id. P. 6. Neither Petitioner nor the government appealed, so the order became final on December 15, 2025. Id. Because the IJ granted withholding relief as to Russia, DHS has sought a third country for Petitioner's removal. Id. 6-8. In the meantime, Petitioner remains detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.2. 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. The Court further finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates his substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (detention following a final removal order is presumptively reasonable for six months but becomes unlawful if the government fails to rebut a noncitizen's showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future). Although detention is mandatory during the initial 90-day removal period, the six-month presumption recognized in Zadvydas is rebuttable. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 ("Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits...."); 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"). The government has continued to detain Petitioner since his removal order became final on December 15, 2025, yet has made almost no progress toward effectuating removal to a third country. Dkt. 5-1 PP. 12-16. ERO San Diego Field Office contacted Removal and International Operations twice on January 14 and February 20, 2026 regarding Petitioner's third country removal, but no third country has been identified. See id. Given the government's failure to identify a third country---the necessary first step for removal---the Court finds that Petitioner has rebutted the Zadvydas presumption that detention may be reasonable for up to six months following a final removal order. Accordingly, because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, Petitioner's detention is unlawful under Zadvydas, and he is entitled to immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 12.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#12

Mar 27, 2026

Order

#13

Mar 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Mar 27, 2026

Miscellaneous (Other 1)

Mar 27, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#15

Mar 28, 2026

Notice (Other)

#16

Mar 28, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Respondents filed a motion seeking to extend the time for Petitioner's release to March 30, 2026 given available flight schedules. Dkts. 14, 15. The Court GRANTS the motion [Dkts. 14, 15]. Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner in San Diego by Monday, March 30, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/28/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/28/2026)

Mar 28, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous (Other 1)

#17

Mar 30, 2026

Notice (Other)

#18

Mar 30, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#19

Apr 06, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#20

Apr 06, 2026

Mail Returned

#21

Apr 06, 2026

Response - Other

#22

Apr 06, 2026

Notice (Other)

#23

Apr 08, 2026

Response - Other

#24

Apr 10, 2026

Mail Returned

#25

Apr 20, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") dated March 24, 2026, prior to the Court's March 28, 2026 order granting habeas relief. Dkt. 19. Because the motion does not raise any new allegations and the Court has already granted habeas relief, the motion for TRO [Dkt. 19] is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/20/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

Apr 20, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#26

Apr 21, 2026

Mail Returned

#27

Apr 21, 2026

Mail Returned