Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01926

#1

Mar 26, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Warden Christopher LaRose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168111.), filed by Jeffer Lesmes Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope, # 3 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1926-JO-MSB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case.(axc1) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#2

Mar 27, 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 16, 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 3/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Apr 01, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Apr 03, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Apr 14, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Jeffer Lesmes Sanchez 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.. On May 22, 2022, Petitioner entered the United States through the Calexico border to seek asylum and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1 at 9 P. 1. A few months later, he was released on parole pending removal proceedings. See id. P. 2. Following his release, Petitioner applied for asylum and appeared at all scheduled immigration hearings. Id. P. 3. Over three years since his release, on January 1, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence and was transferred to immigration custody the following day. Id. PP. 4, 5. He has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since then. 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 parole pending removal proceedings. 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 appears to have been arrested for driving under the influence, see Dkt. 1 at 9-10 P. 4, 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 since his arrest 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. 6.1Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/14/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#6

Apr 14, 2026

Order

#7

Apr 14, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Apr 14, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#8

Apr 15, 2026

Status Report

#9

May 15, 2026

Mail Returned