Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01862

#1

Mar 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against J. Archambeault, Pamela Bondi, Jeremy Casey, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20939934.), filed by Robert Mateusz Podskarbi. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration of Attorney and Exhibits)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1862-JO-AHG. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard are assigned to the case. (Robinson, Emily)(jxg) (anh). (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#2

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for this Immigration Habeas Petition from Chief Judge Order No. 144, which is available on the court's website with the following modification: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for April 9, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. 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 the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/24/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner alleges in the habeas petition that he has open wounds due to an untreated autoimmune skin condition. See Dkt. 1 P. 2. The Court orders Respondents to file a declaration by Thursday, March 26, 2026, at 12:00 p.m., confirming that Petitioner has received, and will continue to receive, all necessary medical treatment until the resolution of the habeas petition.On March 24, 2026, the Court issued a briefing schedule for the habeas petition stating that any optional reply may be filed within three days of the government's response. Dkt. 2. Given the urgency of Petitioner's medical condition, the Court will take the matter under submission on March 31, 2026, when the opposition is due. The Court will inform the parties if any reply brief is required. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/25/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#4

Mar 25, 2026

RESPONSE TO PETITION by J. Archambeault, Pamela Bondi, Jeremy Casey, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Dimbleby, Erin) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#5

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Robert Mateusz Podskarbi, a citizen of Poland, 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 on January 18, 2007 on a B-1/B-2 visa. Id. 24. After marrying a United States citizen, he filed an Application for Adjustment of Status in 2016, which remains pending. Id. P. 25. In February 2020, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained Petitioner, but on May 20, 2020, an Immigration Judge released him on $15,000 bond after finding he was neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. Id. P. 28. Five years later, on July 10, 2025, ICE detained Petitioner again when he appeared at a scheduled appointment to request permission to travel. Id. P. 32. Petitioner has been detained at the Imperial Detention Center since that date. Id. P. 17. 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. See Dkt. 1. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his release 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 previously granted his release on bond. 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). The record contains no evidence that Petitioner 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 July 10, 2025 and grants his habeas petition requesting 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 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). The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 6. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/25/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#6

Mar 25, 2026

Order

#7

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/25/2026. (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#8

Mar 25, 2026

Miscellaneous (Other 1)

#9

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The parties filed a joint motion requesting clarification of the Court's order requiring that Petitioner be immediately released "under the same conditions as his May 20, 2020 release on $15,000 bond." Dkt. 8. The parties represent that the prior bond was cancelled at the time of Petitioner's July 10, 2025 arrest and that they are in the process of determining whether it has been fully refunded. Id.The Court clarifies as follows: Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner no later than March 26, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Given Petitioner's medical condition, his release shall not be delayed for any reason, including resolution of the bond status or any refund process. Upon release, Petitioner shall be subject to the same conditions that existed immediately prior to his July 10, 2025 arrest. Once the government has determined that Petitioner's bond amount has been refunded, it may require Petitioner to post a new bond in the same amount. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/25/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#10

Mar 26, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#11

Mar 27, 2026

Notice (Other)