Nikita Prokopev v. Christopher LaRose; Gregory Archambeault; Kristi Noem; and Pamela Bondi

Case No. 25-cv-3441-JES-MSB · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · January 7, 2026 · No. 25-cv-3441-JES-MSB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice Nikita Prokopev’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The court held that, following the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal, his removal order was final and his detention remained within the statutory 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Writing for the Court
James E. Sunmons Jr.
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
25-cv-3441-JES-MSB
Procedural posture
Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention.
Standard of review
The court considered whether petitioner was in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law for purposes of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Precedential value
Unknown; district court order with no reporter citation.
Parties
Nikita Prokopev v. Christopher LaRose, Gregory Archambeault, Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

immigration detentionfederal habeas corpusremoval proceedingsasylumimmigration

Practice areas

immigration lawhabeas corpuscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Prokopev's immigration detention was unlawful or premature while the statutory ninety-day removal period following the final removal order was still in effect.
  2. Whether the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied without prejudice because the Board of Immigration Appeals had issued a final decision after the petition was filed.

Holdings

  1. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Prokopev's appeal on November 28, 2025, his removal order was final, his detention fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), and the ninety-day removal period was still running; therefore, his § 2241 detention challenge was denied without prejudice.

Key quotations

A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. (at 2)
Thus, at this time and with the information in front of it, the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) because there is now no pending case and a final order of removal against him. (at 3)
The denial, however, is without prejudice to Petitioner refiling should his situation change (at 4)

Factual background

Prokopev, a native of the Russian Federation, presented himself at the United States border on November 20, 2024, seeking admission, and was placed in removal proceedings. He was detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center and filed an asylum application. The Immigration Judge denied asylum and ordered his removal on June 2, 2025, and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his appeal on November 28, 2025.

Procedural history

Prokopev was placed in removal proceedings and detained after presenting himself at the United States border. An Immigration Judge denied his asylum application and entered an order of removal; the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his appeal on November 28, 2025. The district court denied the § 2241 petition without prejudice because the removal order had become final and the statutory ninety-day removal period was still running.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…