1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENATA NIGIEMATULINA, Case No. 25-cv-02933-BAS-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER:

13 v. (1) GRANTING REQUEST FOR 14 WARDEN OF OTAY MESA APPOINTMENT OF DETENTION CENTER, et al., COUNSEL (ECF No. 9); AND 15

Respondents. 16 (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR 17 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 18 UNDER

(ECF No. 1) 19

20 21 Petitioner Renata Nigiematulina filed this case pro se seeking release from 22 immigration custody pending her removal. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded. 23 (ECF No. 7.) The Court also referred the matter to Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. 24 for an evaluation regarding appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4.) Federal Defenders filed 25 a Status Report requesting appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9), as well as a Traverse on 26 behalf of Petitioner (ECF No. 1). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 27 request for appointment of counsel and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition. 28 1 Initially, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), the court may appoint counsel for 2 ||financially eligible habeas petitioners when “the interests of justice so require.” See 3 || Terrovona v. Kincheloe,

(9th Cir. 1990). Petitioner’s declaration 4 || filed with the Traverse confirms that she is financially eligible. (See ECF No. 10-1.) The 5 ||Court finds the interests of justice support appointment here and grants the request to 6 ||appoint counsel. See Terrovona,

; see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 7 || F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 Turning to the Petition, although Ms. Nigiematulina has been detained since 9 || November 2024, her order of removal was issued on June 20, 2025. The Supreme Court 10 deemed a six-month period of post-removal detention as a “presumptively reasonable 11 period of detention” while the United States seeks removal. Zadvydas v. Davis,

683 (2001). Since it has not been six months since Ms. Nigiematulina was ordered 13 ||/removed, and because the United States has been contacting other countries during that 14 |/time frame for possible removal, the Court finds that Ms. Nigiematulina’s Petition is 15 ||/premature. Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice her claim seeking release from 16 ||custody. See id. at 683. 17 To the extent Petitioner seeks an order regarding inadequate medical care, this is not 18 proper claim brought in a habeas petition. A habeas petition is available only to one 19 claiming she is in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 20 || States.”

(c). Therefore, Petitioner’s claims of inadequate medical care 21 also be dismissed. See, e.g., Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) 22 ||(‘[P]risoners may not challenge mere conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.”’). 23 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the request for appointment of counsel. 24 ||(ECF No. 9.) The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition. (ECF No. 25 The Clerk of Court is ordered to close the case. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 || DATED: November 18, 2025 yatta Bahar _, Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge