Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02616

#1

Apr 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Gregory Archambeault, Christopher LaRose, U.S. ICE DHS ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168873.), filed by Emeli Corea Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2616-JO-JLB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt are assigned to the case.(ggv) (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) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

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

#3

May 07, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

May 07, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

May 19, 2026

Filing Fee Received

#6

May 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Emeli Jhosmeli Corea Lopez, a citizen of Honduras, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her immigration detention as a violation of due process and seeking immediate release. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on September 5, 2019 and has resided here ever since. Dkt. 1-2 at 1. Over six years later, on January 13, 2026, she was arrested by immigration officials and has been detained in immigration custody since then. Id. at 1-2. 2. Although Petitioner is no longer detained in the Southern District of California, the Court retains jurisdiction over the habeas petition because (i) it was filed while Petitioner was detained in this district; and (ii) Respondents Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement retain legal authority over Petitioner's detention and are capable of effectuating her release. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306-07 (1944) (holding that jurisdiction properly established at the time a habeas petition is filed is not defeated by the petitioner's subsequent transfer to another district, so long as a respondent with custody over petitioner remains "within reach of the court's process"). 3. 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. See Dkt. 1-2. 4. 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 four months 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 his 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. 5. 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. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/19/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#7

May 19, 2026

Order

May 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#8

May 20, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#9

May 21, 2026

Notice (Other)

#10

May 28, 2026

Mail Returned

#11

Jun 18, 2026

Mail Returned