Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02788

#1

May 01, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Department of Homeland Security, Patrick Divver, Christopher J. Larose, Markwayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21106932.), filed by Adolfo Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Supplement)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2788-JO-GC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Guillermo Cabrera are assigned to the case. (Torres, Jose)(tac) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#2

May 01, 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 5/1/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

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

#3

May 05, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

May 07, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

May 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Adolfo Gonzalez, a citizen of Guatemala, 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 without inspection as a child in or around 2001. Id. P. 18. The government subsequently granted him Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") status and work authorization. Id. PP. 19-27. Around 25 years later, on or about April 9, 2026, immigrational officials arrested Petitioner at an immigration checkpoint. Id. PP. 31-33. Petitioner has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. PP. 33-37.2. 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 P. 33-34. 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 him DACA status. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (grant of liberty carries an "implicit promise" that liberty will be revoked only for violation of release conditions); see Castro v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-161, 2026 WL 380580, *3-*4 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2026) (finding that a noncitizen previously granted DACA status had a liberty interest in remaining free from detention). 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 since his arrest on April 9, 2026 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 5/19/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#6

May 19, 2026

Order

May 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

May 21, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#8

May 21, 2026

Notice (Other)