Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02404

#1

Apr 15, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Fred Figueiroa, Christopher J. LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168650.), filed by Ederson De Melo Damasio. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Letter, # 3 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2404-JO-BLM. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case.(rxc) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#2

Apr 17, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts with the following modification the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144, available on the court's website: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for May 7, 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 hearingThe 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 April 30, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by April 30, 2026 to demonstrate financial eligibility. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b). Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 04/17/2026. (rh) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#3

Apr 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Zandra Lopez on behalf of Ederson De Melo Damasio (Lopez, Zandra)Attorney Zandra Lopez added to party Ederson De Melo Damasio(pty:pet) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

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

#4

Apr 18, 2026

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by Fred Figueiroa, Christopher J. LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin of case(s) No. 26-cv-2401-BJC-VET . (Dimbleby, Erin) (Entered: 04/18/2026)

#5

Apr 20, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Respondents filed a notice of related case flagging that the named petitioner on this docket is Ederson De Melo Damasio, but the text of the habeas petition at Dkt. 1 relates to an Erick Esau Osorio Nova, who also has a petition pending before Judge Cheeks. Dkt. 4. To clarify the identity of the relevant Petitioner in this matter, the Court VACATES the existing briefing schedule [Dkt. 2] and ORDERS as follows: If Petitioner is Ederson De Melo Damasio, (1) Petitioner's counsel shall file an amended petition and form CJA 23 financial affidavit by April 30, 2026; (2) Respondents shall file a return by May 7, 2026; (3) Petitioner's counsel may file a traverse by May 11, 2026; and (4) the Court SETS a hearing on May 14, 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.If Petitioner is Erick Esau Osorio Nova, Petitioner's counsel shall file a status update confirming the same, and the Court will consider transferring the matter to Judge Cheeks. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 04/20/2026. (rh) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

Apr 20, 2026

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

#6

Apr 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Apr 24, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Apr 28, 2026

Financial Affidavit - CJA 23

#9

Apr 29, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#10

May 01, 2026

**DOCKETED IN ERROR** (rxc) Modified on 5/1/2026 (jmo). (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#11

May 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER OF TRANSFER. Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major is no longer assigned. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher for all further proceedings. The new case number is 26cv2404-JO-DEB.(no document attached) (jmo) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

Order of Judge Transfer

#12

May 07, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Todd Blanche, Fred Figueiroa, Christopher J. LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha. (Estrada, Antonio) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#13

May 07, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#14

May 11, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Ederson de Melo Damasio filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention as a violation of due process and seeking his immediate release. See Dkt. 9 ("Pet."). Petitioner asserts that he has never been convicted of a felony and that his removal proceedings remain pending. Dkt. 9-1 ¶ 2, 5. The government filed a non-opposition to the petition. Dkt. 12. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on September 9, 2002 and has resided in Massachusetts ever since. Dkt. 9-1 ¶ 1. On September 8, 2025, he was detained by immigration officials in Massachusetts and subsequently transferred to California, where he has since been continuously detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center without a bond hearing. Id. ¶¶ 2-4. 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. See Dkt. 9-1 ¶¶ 1-3. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by continuing to deprive 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. Petitioner has been detained for eight months although 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 risks 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 to his home state of Massachusetts.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify 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 at Dkt. 15. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 05/11/2026. (rh) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#15

May 11, 2026

Order

May 11, 2026

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

#16

May 14, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#17

May 14, 2026

Order

#18

May 14, 2026

Order on Motion for Order

#19

May 15, 2026

Notice (Other)

#20

May 27, 2026

Status Report

#21

May 29, 2026

Judgment - Clerk