Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-04052

#1

Jul 14, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha, No Fee Required, filed by Eduardo Batista. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-4052-JO-JAC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Janet A. Cabral are assigned to the case. (Lopez, Zandra)(anh) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#2

Jul 15, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144 with the following modifications: The government's return shall identify and address any individualized concerns regarding Petitioner's danger to the community or flight risk, including the factual basis for any such concerns. Petitioner's optional traverse shall be due within three days of the government's return. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for August 6, 2026 at 9:30 AM. 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 07/15/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#3

Jul 15, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT by Eduardo Batista re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Exhibit B. (Lopez, Zandra) (rxc). (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Jul 15, 2026

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

#4

Jul 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Hunter V. Norton on behalf of Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha (Norton, Hunter)Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Christopher LaRose(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Todd M. Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Jesus Rocha(pty:res) (rxc). (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#5

Jul 22, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1-5)(Norton, Hunter) (axc1). (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#6

Jul 27, 2026

TRAVERSE to Petition for Writ of H/C by Eduardo Batista. (Lopez, Zandra) (rxc). (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#7

Aug 05, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Antonio Estrada on behalf of Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha (Estrada, Antonio)Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Christopher LaRose(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Todd M. Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Jesus Rocha(pty:res) (rxc). (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#8

Aug 06, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jinsook Ohta: Motion Hearing held on 8/6/2026. Respondent ordered to file briefing by close of business 8/7/2026; Petition ordered to respond by close of business 8/11/2026. Court will take matter under submission after receipt of all briefing. (Court Reporter/ECR Cristine Gerongco). (Plaintiff Attorney Zandra Lopez). (Defendant Attorney Antonio Estrada). (no document attached) (rla) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#9

Aug 06, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Respondents Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha re 8 Status Conference, . (Estrada, Antonio) (rxc). (Entered: 08/06/2026)

Aug 06, 2026

Status Conference

#10

Aug 07, 2026

RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Eduardo Batista re 9 Supplemental Briefing . (Lopez, Zandra) (rxc). (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#11

Aug 28, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Petitioner Eduardo Batista re 8 Status Conference, . (Lopez, Zandra)(gsw) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#12

Aug 31, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court held oral argument on the petition on August 6, 2026, and tentatively found that Petitioner's continued detention violates his substantive due process rights because there is no significant likelihood that he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Dkt. 8. Given Petitioner's extensive criminal history, including convictions for burglary, grand theft, and conspiracy against the United States, see Dkt. 5-1 at 5–7, the Court ordered the Parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issues of whether other government interests warrant his continued detention and, if not, whether the proper remedy is a bond hearing rather than immediate release. Id. 1. Substantive Due Process: The Court first considers the government's argument that Petitioner's refusal to agree to removal to Mexico constitutes noncooperation that precludes habeas relief. See Dkt. 9. Zadvydas v. Davis places the burden on the noncitizen to show, after a detention period of six months, that there is "good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). The government must then introduce evidence to refute that assertion. See id. Under Ninth Circuit law, a noncitizen "who impedes [] removal efforts has not met his burden of showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Pelich v. I.N.S., 329 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding a Polish native impeded removal efforts when he refused to fill out a Polish passport and provided "conflicting information regarding his name, his parents' name, his parents' birthplaces and residences, his birthplace, and his nationality") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Lema v. I.N.S., 341 F.3d 853, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding an Ethiopian native impeded removal efforts when he falsely represented to the Ethiopian consulate that he was from Eritrea, thereby preventing his removal to Ethiopia). Subsequent courts have clarified that impermissible impediment "pertains only to intentionally obstructionist, bad faith tactics that are designed to frustrate the government's attempts to effectuate a removal order." Diouf v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222, 1232 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner's judicial appeals did not constitute impediment warranting denial of habeas relief); see also Zerai v. Noem, No. 5:26-CV-00972-AYP, 2026 WL 1453931, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2026) ("Failure to self-deport does not equal a failure to assist with securing travel documents." To hold otherwise would mean "no Zadvydas case would have ever granted relief—because people can always self-deport."); Seretse-Khama v. Ashcroft, 215 F. Supp. 2d 37, 51 (D.D.C. 2002) (no impediment to removal where petitioner "honestly told the Consul that he did not want to return to Liberia"). 2. By truthfully informing officials that he did not wish to go to Mexico, Petitioner has not engaged in the type of bad faith obstructionist conduct that would preclude Zadvydas relief. Mexico has a policy of only accepting third country nationals who voluntarily consent to removal to Mexico. See Dkt. 10 at 4–5; see also Gaceran-Jimenez v. Marin, No. 26-cv-1973- BFM, 2026 WL 2262177, *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2026) (noting "the consensus among the federal courts of this Circuit is that" Mexico's current policy is to refuse to accept non-Mexican citizens who do not consent to removal to Mexico). When Respondents brought Petitioner to the Mexico border for removal, he was told to exit the van if he wanted to go to Mexico and to stay in the van if not. Dkt. 3 ("Pet. Decl.") ¶ 4. By staying in the van, Petitioner communicated that he did not voluntarily consent to removal to Mexico and was subsequently returned to the detention center. Id.; Dkt. 5 ¶ 16. This conduct does not amount to bad faith obstructionism under Lema, which requires noncitizens to "cooperate fully and honestly with officials to secure travel documents." See 341 F.3d at 856 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner truthfully informed officials that he did not want to go to Mexico, and as a result did not satisfy Mexico's voluntariness requirement for third-country deportees. He has not engaged in bad faith tactics such as lying about his country of origin, see Lema, 341 F.3d 853, or refusing to apply for a travel document to his home country, see Pelich, 329 F.3d 1057. Rather, "[i]f Mexico will not accept those who do not willingly agree to be removed, then, quite simply, Petitioner does not meet Mexico's criteria for removal to that country." Gaceran-Jimenez v. Marin, No. 26-cv-1973- BFM, 2026 WL 2262177, *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2026); see also Abramian v. Bondi, 820 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1059 (C.D. Cal. 2026) (distinguishing Pelich and rejecting noncooperation argument because petitioners "can hardly be faulted for objecting now they have learned ICE seeks to remove them to Eritrea—a third country with which they have no connections and in which they fear harm"); Kibor v. Hernandez, No. 2:26-cv-01727-JNW, 2026 WL 2069949, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2026) (disinclination to identify third country for removal is not the kind of uncooperative behavior that precludes Zadvydas relief); Pour v. Bondi, No. C26-0562 TSZ, 2026 WL 972410, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2026) ("Respondent cites no authority for the proposition that Petitioner may not seek relief under Zadvydas because he declines to assist in his potentially unlawful removal to a third country."). 3. Moreover, because Petitioner has demonstrated that he does not meet Mexico's criteria for removal, he has met his burden to show that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Respondents have not rebutted that showing: they do not dispute that Mexico imposes a voluntariness requirement for non-Mexican nationals, and they have not identified any other third country to which Petitioner may be removed. See Dkts. 5, 9. For these reasons, the Court adopts its August 6, 2026 tentative that Petitioner's removal is not reasonably foreseeable and that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his substantive due process rights. Because Respondents do not cite any authority to the contrary, nor identify any other government interest in Petitioner's detention despite the opportunity to do so, the Court finds that the appropriate remedy is Petitioner's immediate release. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.4. Third Country Removal: The Court finds that Petitioner's third country removal claim is ripe for review. ICE has received approval to remove Petitioner to Mexico, placing him at a concrete, particularized and actual risk of third country removal under current DHS procedures. See Geo Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 753 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)) (to satisfy Article III standing, an injury must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical) (quotation marks omitted). Further, for the reasons stated in Esmail v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-08325-WLH-RAO, 2025 WL 3030589, *6-*7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) and Kumar v. Wamsley, No. C25-2055-KKE, --- F.Supp.3d. ---, 2025 WL 3204724, *4-*5 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2025), the Court finds that current DHS third-country removal procedures violate Petitioner's due process rights because they (1) do not require DHS to affirmatively ask whether he fears removal to the designated third country and (2) permit removal within 24 hours of providing notice of the designated third country. The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 13. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 08/31/2026. (rh) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#13

Aug 31, 2026

Order granting habeas petition. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 08/31/2026. (rh) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

Aug 31, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#14

Sep 01, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration Confirming Release)(Estrada, Antonio)(gsw) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#15

Sep 03, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the case. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/3/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

Sep 03, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#16

Sep 04, 2026

CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the court GRANTS the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the case is hereby closed.(gsw) (Entered: 09/04/2026)