Dmitriy Ivlev v. Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General; and Warden,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

DMITRIY IVLEV,

Petitioner, v. No. 2:25-cv-00991-WJ-KRS PAMELA JO BONDI, United States Attorney General; and WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,

Respondents.1

ORDER TO ANSWER, GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION, DENYING MOTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE,

AND PROHIBITING TRANSFER OUT OF DISTRICT THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Dmitriy Ivlev’s (“Petitioner”) pro se Letter-Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1, as supplemented by Doc. 2) (collectively “Petition”). Petitioner is a citizen of Russia and is in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. He challenges his continued detention on the grounds that he has not received an individualized bond hearing and/or that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”), (Doc. 7), filed April 20, 2026. It appears Petitioner is unable to prepay the $5.00 habeas filing fee. 1 The opening pleading lists FNU LNU as the sole Respondent. In the January 13, 2026, Order, the Court substituted Respondent FNU LNU with Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General, and Warden, Otero County Processing Center. See (Doc. 3 at 1). A review of the docket shows that the substitution has yet to be entered by the Clerk. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to replace Respondent FNU LNU with Todd Blanche, the current Attorney General of the United States, and Dora Castro, Warden of Otero County Processing Center. See Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v. Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party respondent in a habeas case).

The Court will grant the IFP Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) and Petitioner shall be excused from prepaying the filing fee.

Petitioner also filed a handful of motions seeking immediate consideration and release. Specifically, his Motions to Expedite Consideration, (Docs. 6, 13), and Motions for Immediate Release, (Docs. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16).

On January 13, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General, and Warden, Otero County Processing Center, to answer the Petition within 21- days. (Doc. 3 at 2). The Clerk’s office electronically served the Petition on Respondents on January 13, 2026, in compliance with the Court’s directive. As of today, Respondents have not answered.

The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) shall answer the Petition (Docs. 1, 2) within 10 business days of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. See Habeas Rules 1(b), 4 (courts have discretion to set a time for respondents to answer a habeas petition). If the USAO declines to timely respond, the Court may enter a separate order granting a bond hearing or release from custody. Petitioner may file an optional reply within 10 business days after the answer brief is filed. The Court will also enjoin Respondents from transferring Petitioner out of the District of New Mexico while these proceedings are pending, or until further order of this Court.

The Court will grant Petitioner’s Motions to Expedite Consideration, (Docs. 6, 13), to the extent Petitioner requests an order enjoining the Government from transferring him from the District of New Mexico while these proceedings are pending. To the extent these Motions seek the same relief as the Petition—but on an emergency basis—such request is denied. For this same reason, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motions for Immediate Release, (Docs. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16). Petitioner has not demonstrated his claims are more urgent than other petitioners, and in any event, this Court already addresses immigration petitions as soon as possible.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the USAO shall ANSWER the Petition (Docs. 1, 2) within 10 business days of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Petitioner may file an optional reply within 10 business days after the response is filed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Expedite Consideration, (Docs. 6, 13), are GRANTED IN PART, as set forth above;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Immediate Release, (Docs. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16), are DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government is ENJOINED from transferring Petitioner from the District of New Mexico while these proceedings remain pending, absent express written authorization from this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 7) is GRANTED; and

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall UPDATE the case caption to match the party Respondents added/substituted via this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2026.

KEVIN R. SWEAZEA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE