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 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(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, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (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, 912 F.2d at 1181-82; 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, 533 U.S.
12 683 (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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Therefore, Petitioner’s claims of inadequate medical care
21 also be dismissed. See, e.g., Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (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
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.