Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02842

#1

May 05, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher LaRose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 169148.), filed by Mehrdad Yousefpanah. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Letter to Judge, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Memorandum of Law, # 5 Exhibit - US Department of Justice (Order of the Immigration Judge), # 6 Exhibit - US Department of Justice (Filing Receipt for Appeal or Motion), # 7 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2842-JO-AHG. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard are assigned to the case.(ggv) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#2

May 11, 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 28, 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 5/11/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

May 11, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

May 14, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Camille Savedra on behalf of Christopher LaRose (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Savedra, Camille)Attorney Camille Savedra added to party Christopher LaRose(pty:res) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#4

May 14, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Cassandra Lucinda Lopez on behalf of Mehrdad Yousefpanah (Lopez, Cassandra)Attorney Cassandra Lucinda Lopez added to party Mehrdad Yousefpanah(pty:pet) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#5

May 15, 2026

Amend/Correct

#6

May 15, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On May 15, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended petition [Dkt. 5]. The Court amends the briefing schedule for the habeas petition to the following: Respondents' response to the amended petition is due May 22, 2026 by 5 PM, and Petitioner's optional reply is due May 26, 2026 by 12 PM. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/15/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

May 21, 2026

Response to Petition

#8

May 26, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Mehrdad Yousefpanah filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his immigration detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on January 15, 2025 and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1-3. Shortly after, he was released from immigration detention under an Order of Release on Recognizance and was granted work authorization. Id. Over a year later, on April 20, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Petitioner at a checkpoint. Id. Petitioner has been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since that day. Id.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. 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 recognizance. 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). 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 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. 9. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/26/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#9

May 26, 2026

Order

#10

May 26, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

May 26, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#11

May 27, 2026

Notice (Other)