Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02730

#1

Apr 30, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Patrick Divver, Christopher LaRose, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21098831.), filed by Maria Haydee Palacios Ramos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2730-JO-DEB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case. (Kapur, Gita)(gsw) (anh). (Entered: 04/30/2026)

#2

Apr 30, 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 May 21, 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 4/30/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

#3

Apr 30, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Maria Haydee Palacios Ramos. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Kapur, Gita) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#4

May 07, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

May 07, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#6

May 11, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#7

May 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Maria Haydee Palacios Ramos, a citizen of El Salvador, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her immigration detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection around twenty years ago and resided in the country without any criminal history. Dkts. 1 at 1; 5-1 at 3-4. On April 6, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials detained Petitioner, and she has been continuously detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center without a bond hearing since that date. Dkt. 1 PP. 3-5.2. 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 her current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because she was already residing in the United States at the time of her arrest. Dkt. 1 P. 3. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by continuing to deprive her of her 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 over a month although the record contains no evidence that she has a criminal history, poses a danger to the community, or presents a flight risk, and the government has articulated no individualized justification for her continued detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risks erroneously depriving Petitioner of her 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 her 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 Respondent from redetaining her without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of her 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 her 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. 8. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/19/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#8

May 19, 2026

Order

May 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

May 21, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#10

May 21, 2026

Notice (Other)