Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01248

#1

Feb 26, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 167374.), filed by Vidal Hernandez- Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Letter, # 3 Support of Release, # 4 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1248-JO-BLM. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case.(ggv) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#2

Mar 03, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. 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 Thursday, March 12, 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. 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 03/03/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#3

Mar 11, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Kim A.C. Gregg on behalf of Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center (Gregg, Kim)Attorney Kim A.C. Gregg added to party Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center(pty:res) (rxc). (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#4

Mar 11, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Orders Dismissing Petitions Without Prejudice for Lack of Standing, # 2 Exhibit 2. Form I-213, # 3 Exhibit 3. NTA, # 4 Exhibit 4. Notice of Individual Hearing, # 5 Exhibit 5. Notice of Representation in Immigration Court, # 6 Proof of Service)(Gregg, Kim) (rxc). (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#5

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Respondents filed a response to the petition contending that it is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 because it is not signed and verified by the petitioner or by someone acting on the petitioner's behalf. Dkt. 4. The Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to file a signed declaration verifying the petition by March 24, 2026. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by March 24, 2026 to demonstrate financial eligibility. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b).The Court VACATES the March 19, 2026 hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/12/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#6

Mar 12, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Armilla Teresita Staley-Ngomo on behalf of Vidal Hernandez- Garcia (Staley-Ngomo, Armilla)Attorney Armilla Teresita Staley-Ngomo added to party Vidal Hernandez- Garcia(pty:pet) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#7

Mar 24, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#8

Mar 24, 2026

Financial Affidavit - CJA 23

#9

Mar 26, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Pursuant to the Court's March 12, 2026 order, Dkt. 5, Petitioner filed a CJA 23 financial affidavit to establish his financial eligibility for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 8. The Court finds that Petitioner has established his financial eligibility, see United States v. Ellsworth, 547 F.2d 1096, 109798 (9th Cir.1976), and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/26/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#10

Mar 26, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Vidal Hernandez-Garcia, a citizen of Guatemala, filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 7. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on August 28, 2023 to seek asylum and has continuously resided in the country since. Dkt. 7-1 ("Decl.") ¶ 1. On October 15, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in downtown San Diego and transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. ¶ 2; Dkt. 4-2 at 3. An immigration judge subsequently ruled that Petitioner was ineligible for bond. Decl. ¶ 3. Petitioner remains in detention, and his asylum application remains pending. Id. ¶ 4. 2. 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 at 3. 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. 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 and orders his immediate release.4. 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).The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 11. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/26/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#11

Mar 26, 2026

Order

Mar 26, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

Mar 26, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#12

Mar 30, 2026

Declaration

May 01, 2026

Order of Judge Transfer