Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2026

Matlobov v. Mullin

Full caption

Otabek Matlobov v. Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Kenneth Genalo, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Paul Arteta, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Orange County, New York

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:26-cv-06101
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3

Counsel3 of record
PETITIONER
Jessica Nicole Coffrin-St. Julien The Bronx Defenders
INTERESTED PARTY
Jeffrey Stuart Oestericher U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (86 Chambers St.)
RESPONDENT
Janet Lynne Guyon US Attorneys Office

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.

HabeasImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Matlobov v. Mullin, Judge Ramos ordered an answer to a detention challenge and temporarily barred removal and certain transfers.

Who this affects

Otabek Matlobov and the respondents, including the immigration and detention officials subject to the court’s restrictions on removal and transfer.

What happened

Otabek Matlobov filed a petition asking for relief under a federal law that allows courts to review certain detentions. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts beyond what was needed for this initial order.

The court ordered the respondents to provide information about Matlobov’s location when he filed the petition, his immigration and detention status, the legal authority for his detention, and related immigration proceedings. The respondents must answer within three business days, and Matlobov may reply within ten business days. Until further order, he may not be removed from the United States or transferred except to a facility in specified federal districts.

Judge Edgardo Ramos issued an order directing the case to proceed; the order did not decide whether Matlobov’s petition should ultimately be granted or denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Matlobov v. Mullin · No. 1:26-cv-06101
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
July 20, 2026

Background

Otabek Matlobov filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal statute that permits a court to review certain forms of detention. The opinion does not state the factual basis of the petition beyond the questions the court directed the respondents to answer.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the respondents to file a letter within two business days addressing:

- whether Matlobov was in the Southern District of New York when he filed the petition and, if not, which district he was in and whether the case should be transferred; - his immigration identification number, current place of detention, and a contact person who could help prospective counsel access him; - the statutory provisions the respondents relied on to detain him; - whether the case could be distinguished from a cited Second Circuit decision; - any final removal order; and - the procedural status of any pending Department of Homeland Security or Executive Office for Immigration Review proceedings.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the respondents must file an answer to the petition within three business days of the order, and Matlobov may file a reply within ten business days.

Temporary Restrictions

To preserve its jurisdiction while considering the petition, the court ordered that Matlobov may not be removed from the United States without further court permission. The court also ordered that he may not be transferred without further court permission, except to a facility within the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey.

Disposition

This was an order directing the respondents to answer and temporarily restricting removal and certain transfers. The court did not decide the merits of Matlobov’s petition, and it did not grant or deny the requested habeas relief in this order. The clerk was directed to notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office, mail the order to Matlobov, and mail him an information package.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.