govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03313-0

1 
3:26-cv-3313-CAB-MMP 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
VANO NATSVALADZE, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN, Imperial Regional Adult 
Detention Facility, et al., 
Respondents. 
 Case No.:  3: 26-cv-3313-CAB-MMP 
 
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
AND DENYING MOTION FOR A 
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 
ORDER 
 
Pending before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Vano Natsvaladze (“ Petitioner”), an immigration detainee 
proceeding pro se.  [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).]  As a result of a prior habeas petition, 
Petitioner received a bond hearing where the immigration judge denied bond based on a 
finding that Petitioner posed a risk of flight .  [Case No. 3:26-cv- 922-CAB-BJW at Doc. 
Nos. 9, 10.]  Petitioner does not address this prior habeas petition or the resulting adverse 
bond determination in the current Petition. 
As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “[Petitioner] pursued habeas review of the IJ’s 
adverse bond determination befo re appealing to the BIA. This short cut was improper.  
[Petitioner] should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before 
Case 3:26-cv-03313-CAB-MMP     Document 4     Filed 06/16/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
1 of 2
 
2 
3:26-cv-3313-CAB-MMP 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision.”  Leonardo v. Crawford , 646 
F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).   
The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice.  The Court also 
DENIES the request for emergency injunctive relief to prevent Respondents from 
transferring or removing him during the pe ndency of this Petition and while the Ninth 
Circuit proceedings remain active.  [Doc. No. 1.]  As Petiti oner states, his Ninth Circuit 
petition for review includes a request for a stay of removal and that “stay of removal is in 
effect until that request that request has been addressed.”  [Doc. No. 1 at 4.] 
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 
It is SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 16, 2026 
 
Case 3:26-cv-03313-CAB-MMP     Document 4     Filed 06/16/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight