Southern District of New York • 1:25-cv-10058

#1

Dec 03, 2025

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Document filed by Yevhenii Malets..(kgo) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

Dec 03, 2025

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron 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. (kgo)

#2

Dec 04, 2025

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returned to the court, or otherwise receives information that the address of record for a self-represented plaintiff is no longer valid, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this order.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) (kgo) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

#3

Dec 04, 2025

ORDER: The Court issues the following orders. The Clerk of Court shall electronically notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York that this Order has been issued at the following email address: jeffrey.oestericher@usdoj.gov. First, to preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States absent further order of this Court. See, e.g., Khalil v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-1935 (JMF), 2025 WL 750599, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (citing cases); see also, e.g., Du v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 25-CV-0644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) ("[A] a federal court may temporarily enjoin immigration authorities from deporting individuals if it preserves the court's jurisdiction over a case or cases."). Moreover, in light of Petitioner's interests in participating in further proceedings before this Court and to facilitate resolution of the Petition, Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner 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, e.g., Perez y Perez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4828 (DEH), 2025 WL 1908284, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (enjoining a habeas petitioner's transfer pending adjudication of his petition); see also, e.g., Arostegui-Maldonado v. Baltazar, No. 25-CV-2205 (WJM) (STV), 2025 WL 2280357, at *14-16 (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2025) (same); Oliveros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-7117 (BLF), 2025 WL 2677125, at *8-9, *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) (same). Second, within two business days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall file a letter with the following information: As further set forth by this Order. Third, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Respondents shall file an answer to the Petition within three business days of the date of this Order; and unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Petitioner shall file any reply within ten business days of the date of this Order. Fourth, the Court finds that the appointment of pro bono counsel is appropriate in this case. In making this finding, the Court has considered the factors set forth in Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986), which include: "(1) whether the party's claim has substantial merit; (2) whether the nature of the factual issues requires an investigation, and whether the party's ability to investigate is inhibited; (3) whether the claim's factual issues turn on credibility, which benefits from the skills of those trained in presentation of evidence and cross examination; (4) the party's overall ability to present its case; and (5) whether the legal issues presented are complex." Garcia v. USICE (Dept. of Homeland Sec.), 669 F.3d 91, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2011). The Court finds that the Hodge factors weigh in favor of seeking pro bono counsel for Petitioner. In particular, the facts of Petitioner's detention present complex legal questions. Moreover, Petitioner's abilities to present his case and conduct any related fact investigation are significantly limited due to his incarceration and the emergency nature of his petition. Thus, in this case, representation would "lead to a quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues[.]" Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Petitioner in this case. It should be noted that the Court does not have the authority to "appoint" counsel, but instead, may only "request" that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant pro bono. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301 (1989). There is no guarantee that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case or that, should the services of the volunteer be declined, the court will locate another. In either instance, Petitioner should be prepared to proceed with the case pro se. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Petitioner, or his next friend, directly. If Petitioner has already successfully secured counsel on his own, or otherwise does not wish the Court to seek volunteers for pro bono counsel, he should inform the Court as soon as possible. The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of pro se litigants. See https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-bono-fund-order. For the foregoing reasons, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Petitioner in this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send by regular mail a copy of this order to the Petitioner's next friend, Roman Kravchina. Petitioner's next friend may receive court documents by email by completing the form, Consent to Electronic Service. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 12/4/2025) (tg) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

Dec 04, 2025

Note Regarding Service on Self-Represented Party

Dec 04, 2025

Case Designated ECF. (kgo)

Dec 04, 2025

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..(kgo)

#4

Dec 05, 2025

Miscellaneous Relief

#5

Dec 05, 2025

Notice of Appearance

Dec 05, 2025

Mailing Receipt

#6

Dec 08, 2025

Notice of Appearance of Pro Bono Counsel

#7

Dec 08, 2025

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#8

Dec 08, 2025

Extension of Time

#9

Dec 09, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#10

Dec 11, 2025

Extension of Time

#11

Dec 12, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#12

Dec 12, 2025

Extension of Time

#13

Dec 15, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#14

Dec 16, 2025

Response (non-motion)

#15

Dec 17, 2025

Order

#16

Dec 23, 2025

Extension of Time

#17

Dec 29, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#18

Jan 02, 2026

Adjourn Conference

#19

Jan 05, 2026

Order on Motion to Adjourn Conference