Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aleksandr Klimin, a Russian citizen detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 21, 2026. The respondents, including J. Johnson, failed to file a timely Answer to the petition. The order's footnote records a report that the United States Attorney's Office had decided it would file nothing in response to some immigration-related habeas petitions, notwithstanding a general order directing respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted.
Klimin entered the United States in April 2024 and was paroled from immigration detention the following month. According to the order, he attended all required check-ins and otherwise fully complied with the conditions of his supervision, and removal proceedings, including his asylum application, remained pending. On February 28, 2026, ICE re-detained him when he appeared for a scheduled check-in. The court described that re-detention as occurring without prior notice, in the absence of any materially changed conditions, and without affording him a prompt opportunity to be heard in opposition to detention, and noted that he had remained in detention ever since.
The Court’s Holding
The court first explained that the respondents' failure to file a timely Answer did not by itself entitle Klimin to habeas relief; under Gordon v. Duran, Hinkson v. Copenhaver, Rasul v. Bush, and Snook v. Wood, he still had to prove that his custody was in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a challenge to a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), but that it did have jurisdiction to adjudicate Klimin's challenge to his detention under cases such as Jennings v. Rodriguez, Zadvydas v. Davis, and Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The court concluded that Klimin had carried his burden.
Applying Fifth Amendment due process, the court stated that constitutional due process extends to noncitizens present in the United States and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner under Mathews v. Eldridge. It recognized that a noncitizen previously released on parole possesses a protected liberty interest in remaining undetained, citing Fernandez Lopez v. Wofford and Noori v. Larose. The court held that Klimin's February 28, 2026 re-detention without prior notice or a prompt opportunity to be heard violated his due process rights, and a footnote added that even if the process due were limited to a prompt post-detention bond hearing, Klimin had not received one.
The court granted the petition in part and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. It ordered the respondents to release Klimin from detention immediately, subject to his previous conditions of supervision, and enjoined them from any further re-detention of Klimin absent at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is an unacceptable danger to the community or an unacceptable risk of flight. The court further stated that Klimin had failed to justify any different or additional form of habeas relief.
Key Takeaways
- A respondent's default in a habeas case does not automatically produce relief; the petitioner must still establish that his custody violates the Constitution, federal law, or treaties.
- The court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a noncitizen's challenge to ICE detention even though it cannot review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
- Re-detaining a paroled noncitizen without prior notice or a prompt opportunity to be heard violates procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
- The remedy here combined immediate release on the petitioner's previous supervision conditions with an injunction requiring at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before any further re-detention.
- At that hearing the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is an unacceptable danger or flight risk, and the court denied any different or additional habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies habeas jurisdiction and procedural due process to the re-detention of a paroled noncitizen while leaving the underlying removal proceedings outside the ruling. Its remedy pairs immediate release with concrete procedural safeguards designed to prevent another detention without process.
The order also makes clear that the government's nonresponse did not decide the merits: the court independently assessed custody, identified the constitutional violation, and limited relief to what it found justified, expressly rejecting any different or additional form of habeas relief.