Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01195

#1

Feb 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Gregory J. Archambeault, Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Christopher J. Larose, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20827335.), filed by Gabriel Armenta Ortiz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Immigration Judge Order)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1195-JO-VET. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres are assigned to the case. (Hilts, Murray)(anh) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#2

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 25, 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 5:00 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 5:00 PM on Tuesday, March 10, 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 Thursday, March 19, 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 2/25/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Feb 26, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Feb 26, 2026

Certificate of Service

#5

Mar 10, 2026

Response - Other

#6

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Gabriel Armenta Ortiz, a citizen and national of Mexico, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention under as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on or about January 15, 1993, and has resided in the country since that time. Dkt. 5-1 at 3. On August 20, 2019, DHS initiated removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and released Petitioner on his own recognizance. Id. at 7, 10-13.2. More than six years after Petitioner's release, on or about January 13, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested him while his removal proceedings were pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Dkt. 1 P. 19; Dkt. 5-1 at 15. Petitioner has been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since that day. Id. PP. 17, 20. 3. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*8 (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. See Dkt. 1.4. 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."). Petitioner acquired a protectable liberty interest when the government released him on his own recognizance on August 20, 2019. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (grant of parole carries an "implicit promise" that liberty will be revoked only for violation of release conditions). Although Petitioner has been arrested for driving under the influence six years ago, the government has offered no evidence that it detained Petitioner after considering that fact and making an individualized determination of his danger to the public or flight risk. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). Instead, Respondents afforded Petitioner no process before wrongfully asserting their detention authority under § 1225(b)(2). 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 or about January 13, 2026 and orders his immediate release.5. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondent from redetaining Petitioner 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 allows the government to hold a noncitizen in custody while it decides whether to initially grant release, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who already enjoy a liberty interest. In order to prevent an erroneous deprivation of that existing 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. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth in Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/12/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#7

Mar 12, 2026

Order

#8

Mar 12, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Mar 16, 2026

Status Report