Legal Opinion

Artem Mizgirev, et al. v. Eric Rokosky, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided June 9, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01969Unknown

1Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Artem Mizgirev, et al., No. CV-26-01969-PHX-SHD 10 Petitioners, ORDER 11 v. 12 Eric Rokosky, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued 17 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be granted in part and 18 denied in part. (Doc. 16.) No objection has been filed and the time to do so has expired. 19 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 20…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Xochitl Hernandez v. Jefferson SessionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  3. Vijendra K. Singh v HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  4. Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. United States Bureau of Land ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  5. Ysiem Corp. v. Commercial Net Lease Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API