Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01181

#1

Feb 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Gregory J. Archambeault, Pamela Jo Bondi, Jeremy Casey, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20825841.), filed by Jairo Josepy Ramos Bonilla. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibits)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1181-JO-MMP. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case. (Martin, Michael)(anh) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#2

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] by 12:00 PM on February 27, 2026, and file proof of service. Petitioner must also serve the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California by a method prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(A) by that date and file proof of service.The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 9:00 AM on Monday, March 9, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for Monday, March 16, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing. The hearing will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. The parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM on the day before the hearing to determine whether such an order has issued and the hearing has been vacated.The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/24/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#3

Feb 24, 2026

Ex Parte MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Jairo Josepy Ramos Bonilla. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits (Including Declarations), # 2 Memo of Points and Authorities Memorandum of Points and Authorities)(Martin, Michael) (rxc). (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#4

Feb 25, 2026

Certificate of Service

#5

Feb 25, 2026

Certificate of Service

#6

Feb 26, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 09, 2026

Response - Other

#8

Mar 09, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#9

Mar 11, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Jairo Josepy Ramos Bonilla, a citizen of El Salvador, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in October 2014 and has continuously resided in the country with no criminal history. Dkt. 1 P. 3; Dkt. 1-2 at 10; Dkt. 7-1 at 6. On February 25, 2022, Petitioner filed an affirmative asylum application, and the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") granted him work authorization during the pendency of his application, valid through October 17, 2029. Dkt. 1-2 at 14 PP. 4, 40; Dkt. 7-1 at 4.2. On February 11, 2026, Border Patrol agents arrested Petitioner at a checkpoint because he "was present in the United States illegally." Dkt. 7-1 at 5. The next day, DHS initiated removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Id. at 9. Since that time, Petitioner has been detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility without a bond hearing. Dkt. 1 PP. 16, 34.3. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that (i) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. Dkt. 7-1 at 4. 4. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by depriving him of his freedom from physical confinement without an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the public. Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail."). In Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit recognized that a noncitizen's interest in freedom from physical confinement itself constitutes a core liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The record contains no evidence that Petitioner has a criminal history, poses a danger to the community, or presents a flight risk, and the government has articulated no individualized justification for his continued detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since his arrest on February 11, 2026 and orders his immediate release.5. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondents from redetaining him without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of his liberty interest. See, e.g., Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025); Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2025); O.G. v. Albarran, No. 1:26-CV-00010-TLN-DMC, 2026 WL 19105, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2026). While § 1226 ordinarily provides for a bond hearing after detention, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who have already been subjected to unconstitutional detention. In order to prevent any further erroneous deprivation of his liberty interest and satisfy due process requirements, this hearing must take place prior to any detention. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779-80 (2008) (while habeas relief commonly includes release from physical imprisonment, "depending on the circumstances, more [relief] may be required"); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner's release--revocable at the government's discretion--did not provide complete relief where petitioner sought a legal ruling that he could only be redetained upon a bond hearing); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005) (despite release, petitioner's habeas claim challenging the statutory authority for his detention "continue[d] to present a live case or controversy" because the court could provide relief to prevent redetention on the same allegedly unlawful basis).6. Because the Court has ruled on the merits of the habeas petition, it denies the motion for temporary restraining order as moot [Dkt. 3].7. The Clerk is directed to close the case.The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 10.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/11/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#10

Mar 11, 2026

Order

#11

Mar 11, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Mar 11, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#12

Mar 13, 2026

Notice (Other)