# Prokopev

> District Court, S.D. California · January 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239373

## Case

- **Full name:** Nikita Prokopev v. Christopher Larose; Gregory Archambeault; Kristi Noem; and Pamela Bondi
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** January 7, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239373

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NIKITA PROKOPEV, Case No.: 25-cv-3441-JES-MSB

12 Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; GREGORY

ARCHAMBEAULT; KRISTI NOEM;
15
and PAMELA BONDI, [ECF No. 1]
16
Respondents.
17
18 Before the Court is Petitioner Nikita Propokev’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the Court’s Order to
20 Show Cause (ECF No. 5), Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 6. To date, Petitioner has
21 not filed a traverse. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES
22 WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition.
23 I. BACKGROUND
24 Petitioner is a native of the Russian Federation, and presented himself to the United
25 States border on November 20, 2024, seeking admission. ECF No. 1 at 4. He was put into
26 removal proceedings at that time. ECF No. 6-1. He was detained and transferred to Otay
27 Mesa Detention Center, where he remains to date. ECF No. 1 at 4. While detained,
28 Petitioner filed an asylum application and proceeded through the removal process. On June
1 2, 2025, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his asylum application and entered an order
2 of removal against him. ECF No. 6-2. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Board of
3 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on June 23, 2025. ECF No. 1 at 5. The BIA denied his appeal
4 on November 28, 2025. ECF No. 6-3.
5 II. LEGAL STANDARD
6 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
7 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2).
8 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
9 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
10 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of
11 habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the
12 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas
13 corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in
14 that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301
15 (2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview
16 of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see
17 also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
18 III. DISCUSSION
19 Respondents argue that, with the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s appeal, his removal
20 order is now final as of November 28, 2025. ECF No. 6 at 1. Thus, Respondents argue that
21 they are within their statutorily mandated 90-day period of detention provided by 8 U.S.C.
22 § 1231(a), and Petitioner’s challenge to his detention is premature. Id.
23 The Court agrees with Respondents. Petitioner proceeds pro se and at the time he
24 mailed and signed his petition, on November 21, 2025, it appears the BIA’s denial had not
25 yet been issued. See ECF No. 1 at 8. However, the BIA’s denial now changes the situation.
26 Respondents submitted their return to the petition on December 15, 2025, and since then,
27 the Court has not received a traverse or any other filing from Petitioner challenging the
28 finality of the removal order. See ECF No. 6. Thus, at this time and with the information
1 ||in front of it, the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)
2 || because there is now no pending case and a final order of removal against him. The BIA
3 ||issued its decision on November 28, 2025, starting the 90-day removal period, which is
4 ||currently still in effect. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A)-(B).
5 Accordingly, at this time, the Court must DENY Petitioner’s petition. The denial,
6 ||however, is without prejudice to Petitioner refiling should his situation change, for
7 ||example, by his filing a further appeal that would move his removal proceeding back to
8 || pending or should he be subject to prolonged detention after this 90-day period expires, if
9 || Respondents are unable to successfully remove him during that time.
10 IV. CONCLUSION
1] For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice.
12 || The Clerk is directed to close the case.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 || Dated: January 7, 2026
15 = a,
16 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr.
7 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239373. Public record. Not legal advice.