Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03926

#1

Jul 09, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Jul 09, 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 July 30, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 13B. 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 7/9/2026. (mk) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#3

Jul 09, 2026

Miscellaneous (Other 1)

#4

Jul 09, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Jul 09, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#5

Jul 15, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#6

Jul 20, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#7

Jul 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner filed a motion to proceed under the pseudonym "L.R.S.," citing safety concerns and fear of retaliation based on her political opinion. Dkt. 3 at 34. Here, Petitioner has demonstrated reasonable grounds to fear retaliatory harm from the Cuban government. She states that she was previously arrested because of her political opinion and that her mother continues to face threats from Cuban officials. See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (proceeding under a pseudonym is appropriate in "unusual case[s]" where nondisclosure of a party's identity "is necessary... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment"). Given the severity of the threatened harms, the Court finds that Petitioner's need for anonymity outweighs any potential prejudice to Respondents---who have already responded to the petition and do not oppose the motion---as well as the public's interest in knowing Petitioner's identity. See Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (proceeding under a pseudonym is appropriate where the severity and reasonableness of the threatened harm outweigh any prejudice to the opposing party and the public interest in disclosure). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's motion to proceed under a pseudonym [Dkt. 3]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 7/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#8

Jul 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: L.R.S. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her immigration detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. The government filed a non-opposition to habeas relief. Dkt. 5. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on December 2, 2022 and was granted release on her own recognizance three days later. Dkt. 1 P. 19. On September 16, 2025, immigration officials detained Petitioner at a traffic stop. Id. PP. 1, 3. On October 7, 2025, an Immigration Judge denied Petitioner's request for custody redetermination for lack of jurisdiction under the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which held that noncitizens present in the United States without inspection or admission are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Id. P. 24. As a result, Petitioner has been detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility for over ten months. Id. P. 10.2. For the reasons stated in Esquivel Pacheco v. LaRose, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1174-75 (S.D. Cal. 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. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking her 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 her release pending removal proceedings. 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 her continued detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked 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 since her arrest on September 16, 2025 and grants her habeas petition requesting immediate release.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify her 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 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 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 7/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#9

Jul 27, 2026

Order

Jul 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous (Other 1)

Jul 27, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#10

Jul 28, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#11

Jul 29, 2026

Notice (Other)