Ekaterina Lukina v. Kristi Noem, et al.

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ekaterina Lukina, No. CV-26-01964-PHX-KML (MTM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Kristi Noem, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration detention. (Doc. 1.)1 17 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia who entered the United States in January 2023 seeking asylum. After DHS issued a Notice to Appear, Petitioner was released into the United States while her claims were considered. On or about April 9, 2025, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s claims, but she remained released on the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program and was told her next check-in would be during the summer. (Doc. 1 at 6, 53.) But on or about April 28, 2025, she was taken into immigration custody despite not violating any conditions of supervision and “without any individualized explanation, justification, or identified triggering event.” (Doc. 1 at 6, 53.)

25 Petitioner appealed the IJ’s denial, and in August 2025 the BIA remanded the case to the IJ for further consideration. Shortly thereafter, the IJ reaffirmed its decision, and 1 Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Expedite (Doc. 2) and a Motion for Order to Show Cause (Doc. 3). Because the Court is directing Respondents to promptly show cause why the Petition should not be granted, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to preliminary relief at this juncture. Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion without prejudice.

1 Petitioner appealed again. That appeal remains pending. Petitioner has twice requested that she be granted parole while the appeal is pending, and in each instance DHS has declined to do so in its discretion. As of the date of this Order, Petitioner remains in custody.

4 Numerous courts have concluded that individuals like Petitioner, who were released from immigration detention, are entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing prior to any rearrest or detention as a matter of due process. See, e.g., J.C.E.P. v. Wofford, CV-25-01559-EFB (HC), 2025 WL 3268273, *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025) (collecting cases); Ramirez Clavijo v. Kaiser, CV-25-06248-BLF, 2025 WL 2419263, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025) (“Petitioner thus has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that she is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker prior to any re-arrest or detention under the Due Process Clause.”); Singh v. Andrews, CV-25-00801-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 1918679, at *8 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2025) (“On balance, the Mathews factors show that petitioner is entitled to process, and that process should have been provided before petitioner was detained.”).

15 Respondents must show cause why the Petition should not be granted. Any response must be supported by documentary evidence including, if applicable, affidavits by individuals with personal knowledge of the factual statements made therein and signed under penalty of perjury.

19 IT IS ORDERED: 20 (1) Markwayne Mullin is substituted for Respondent Kristi Noem.

21 (2) Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite (Doc. 2) and Motion for Order to Show Cause (Doc. 3) are denied.

23 (3) Counsel for Petitioner must immediately serve the Petition (Doc. 1) and a copy of this Order on Respondents.

25 (4) If not already issued, the Clerk of Court must issue any properly completed summonses.

27 (5) The Clerk of Court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this Order and the Petition (Doc. 1) to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the || attention of Melissa Kroeger at [email protected], Lon Leavitt at 2|| [email protected], Theo Nickerson at [email protected], Dina 3|| Anagnopoulos at [email protected], and Mary’ Finlon □□ Mary.Finlon@usdo}j.gov.

5 (6) Respondents must show cause no later than April 2, 2026, why the Petition || should not be granted.

7 (7) Petitioner may file a reply no later than April 6, 2026.

8 Dated this 26th day of March, 2026.

4, fy Vo MN. \ %, il AA Ata Ye OC ft □□ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge _3-