Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02959

#1

May 11, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Facility Administrator ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 169333.)Fee is Paid, filed by Johanna Montserrat Mero Sambrano. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Passport ID, # 3 Receipt, # 4 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2959-JO-BJW. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Brian J. White are assigned to the case.(dde) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#2

May 11, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Johanna Montserrat Mero Sambrano. (Attachments: # 1 Emergency Motion)(dde) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#3

May 11, 2026

MOTION for Immediate Release (Emergency) by Johanna Montserrat Mero Sambrano. (dde) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#4

May 11, 2026

MOTION to Expedite Habeas Corpus Proceedings by Johanna Montserrat Mero Sambrano. (dde) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#5

May 12, 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: the Government's Response to the habeas petition is due by May 15, 2026 at 12:00 PM. 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 5/12/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

May 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#6

May 15, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On May 12, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to file a response to the habeas petition by May 15, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Dkt. 5. To date, Respondents have not filed a response.Respondents are ORDERED to (1) show cause why they failed to comply with the Court's May 12, 2026 order and (2) file the required response no later than Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/15/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

May 18, 2026

Response to Petition

#8

May 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner's habeas petition [Dkt. 1] is currently scheduled for oral argument on May 21, 2026. The Court will take the habeas petition under submission without oral argument on that date. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/19/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

May 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

May 22, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Johanna Montserrat Mero Sambrano challenges her immigration detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On February 18, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers took Petitioner into custody when she appeared for a scheduled ICE appointment. The Court takes judicial notice that an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed on February 20, 2026. See EOIR Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation; United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding government online sources are proper subjects of judicial notice as they are capable of accurate and ready determination). There is no indication in the record that Petitioner reserved her right to appeal, and Petitioner states that she did not appeal the removal order. Dkt. 1 at 2. The removal order therefore became final on the date it was issued, and Petitioner has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since then. Dkt. 1 at 9. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality of her current detention. As courts have consistently found, a challenge to continued detention pending removal does not intrude on the government's discretion to decide "when" or "whether" to execute a removal order and falls outside § 1252(g)'s scope. See Phakeokoth v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-02817-RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 3124341, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025); Esmaeili v. Noem, No. 26-CV-0203-GPC-JLB, 2026 WL 240661 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026).3. The Court further finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates her substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (detention following a final removal order is presumptively reasonable for six months in order to effectuate removal but becomes unlawful if the government fails to rebut a noncitizen's showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future). Although detention is mandatory during the initial 90-day removal period, the six-month presumption recognized in Zadvydas is rebuttable where the petitioner demonstrates that removal is not reasonably foreseeable, such that continued detention "exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal." Id. at 700; see Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 ("Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits...."); Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 994 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (explaining that the "Supreme Court in Zadvydas outlined a 'guide' for approaching these detention challenges, 533 U.S. at 700-701, not a prohibition on claims challenging detention less than six months"). The government concedes that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Dkt. 7. In light of that concession, and the lack of any evidence that the government has taken meaningful steps toward removal, the Court finds that Petitioner has rebutted the Zadvydas presumption that detention following a final removal order may be reasonable for up to six months in order to effectuate removal. Because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Court finds that Petitioner's detention is unlawful under Zadvydas and orders her immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 10.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/22/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#10

May 22, 2026

Order

#11

May 22, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

May 22, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#12

May 26, 2026

Notice (Other)

#13

May 27, 2026

Notice (Other)

#14

Jun 11, 2026

Mail Returned

#15

Jun 11, 2026

Mail Returned