Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01426

#1

Mar 05, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Bondi, Christopher LaRose, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 167597.), filed by Leonardo Nelson Huallpa-Nistaus. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt, # 3 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1426-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case. (Leonardo Nelson Huallpa-Nistaus)(anh) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#2

Mar 05, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Leonardo Nelson Huallpa-Nistaus. (anh) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#3

Mar 05, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Leonardo Nelson Huallpa-Nistaus. (anh) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#4

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order requesting injunctive relief. Dkts. 1, 2. The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 12:00 PM on Wednesday, March 18, 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 26, 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, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before to the hearing.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. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [Dkt. 1] to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/6/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#5

Mar 14, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 16, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#7

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Leonardo Nelson Huallpa-Nistaus, a citizen of Bolivia, 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 December 15, 1996, and has resided in the country since that time. Dkt. 2 at 2. On May 3, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Petitioner for lacking legal status and initiated removal proceedings. Dkt. 1 PP. 2, 9; Dkt. 2 at 2. In June 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") granted Petitioner bond, but that bond was later revoked after the IJ was removed from the bench. Dkt. 2 at 2. As a result, Petitioner has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center for over ten months. Dkt. 1 PP. 2, 9. 2. 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 Petitioners 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 Dkts. 1, 2.3. 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. Although Petitioner appears to have prior arrests--including for driving under the influence in 2003 and domestic violence in 2024--the government has offered no evidence that it detained him after considering those facts 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 detaining him. 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 and orders his immediate release.4. 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 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).The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth in Dkt. 8. (mk) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#8

Mar 25, 2026

Order

#9

Mar 25, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#10

Mar 27, 2026

Declaration

#11

Apr 10, 2026

Mail Returned