Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03041

#1

May 13, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number IFP filed.), filed by Arnold Jerry Martinez-Aragon. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3041-JO-DDL. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner are assigned to the case. Docket mailed to petitioner(tac) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#2

May 13, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Arnold Jerry Martinez-Aragon. (tac) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#3

May 13, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Arnold Jerry Martinez-Aragon. (tac) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#4

May 13, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Arnold Jerry Martinez-Aragon. (tac) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#5

May 14, 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 June 4, 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 5/14/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#6

May 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

May 21, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#8

Jun 03, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Arnold Jerry Martinez-Aragon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his prolonged detention without a bond hearing as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection and has resided in the country ever since. Dkt. 7 at 2. Petitioner was previously convicted of petit larceny and was later arrested on burglary and theft charges. Id. On October 10, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers took Petitioner into immigration custody after he was arrested for failing to appear for trial. Id. The government initiated removal proceedings the same day and detained Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Id. As a result, Petitioner has remained in immigration detention for almost eight months. Id. 2. For the reasons stated in Faizi v. Larose, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, 2026 WL 1112035, *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026), the Court finds that 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. 3. For the reasons stated in Faizi, 2026 WL 1112035, at *3-*4, and Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 874-78 (E.D. Cal. 2022), the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Faizi, 2026 WL 1112035, at *4-*5, the Court considers the likely duration of detention---both elapsed and anticipated---and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. Here, Petitioner has been detained for almost eight months, and his immigration proceedings remain pending without a decision. See Dkt. 7 at 2-3. Further appeals from either side would extend detention by months or years, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed a year without any showing of undue or bad faith delay by Petitioner. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty interest, especially here where the government has not identified a legitimate interest in continuing to detain Petitioner without a bond hearing and the cost of providing one would be minimal. See Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off., No. 3:19-CV-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1862254, *7 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off. Dir., No. 3:19-CV-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1855189 (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020) ("The government interest at stake here is not the continued detention of Petitioner, but the government's ability to detain him without a bond hearing."); Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ("Detention for its own sake... is not a legitimate government interest."). The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates her Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 9. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 6/3/2026. (mk) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

#9

Jun 03, 2026

Order

#10

Jun 03, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Jun 03, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#11

Jun 11, 2026

Notice (Other)