Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-04981

#1

Sep 02, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21587252.), filed by Pedro Jose Bautista-Mora. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit I-286- Notice of Custody Redetermination, # 3 Exhibit I-220A, # 4 Exhibit TPS Approval Notice, # 5 Exhibit Employment Authorization Approval Notice)The new case number is 3:26-cv-4981-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(ddo) (anh). (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#2

Sep 02, 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 September 17, 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 09/02/2026. (mxc) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

Sep 02, 2026

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

#3

Sep 04, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitute of Counsel by Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff on behalf of Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella (Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party Jeremy Casey(pty:res), Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party David J. Venturella(pty:res)(gsw) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#4

Sep 09, 2026

RESPONSE TO PETITION by Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)(gsw) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#5

Sep 09, 2026

TRAVERSE to Petition for Writ of H/C by Pedro Jose Bautista-Mora filed by Pedro Jose Bautista-Mora. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(gsw) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#6

Sep 14, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Respondents have indicated in their response that Petitioner was scheduled for a bond hearing on September 10, 2026. Dkt. 4 at 2. By September 16, 2026 at 9:00 AM, the Court orders Respondents to file a declaration confirming that Petitioner was provided a bond hearing, reporting the decision in that hearing, and attaching a copy of the Immigration Judge's bond hearing order. Upon receipt, the Court will determine whether to dismiss the petition as moot. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/14/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

Sep 16, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Respondents Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella re 6 Minute Order (No Time),, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)(gsw) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#8

Sep 16, 2026

DECLARATION re 6 Minute Order (No Time),, by Respondents Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)(gsw) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#9

Sep 16, 2026

RESPONSE re 7 Supplemental Briefing, 8 Declaration filed by Pedro Jose Bautista-Mora. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(gsw) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#10

Sep 16, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court vacates the hearing on the habeas scheduled for September 17, 2026 and will take the petition under submission on that date. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/16/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

Sep 16, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#11

Sep 22, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Pedro Jose Bautista-Mora, a citizen of Venezuela, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1.1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in December 2021 and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Id. P. 4. On December 18, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") released him on his own recognizance. Id. P. 5. More than four years later, on August 4, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers arrested Petitioner and took him into immigration custody. Id. P. 8. Petitioner has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Id. P. 8.2. The Court finds that the petition is not moot because Petitioner remains detained and would be entitled to release if he prevails on his due process claim. See Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (where the petitioner remains subject to restrictions on his freedom and could obtain meaningful relief, the habeas petition presents a live controversy).3. For the reasons stated in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, ---F.4th--- (9th Cir. July 30, 2026) and 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 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. 1.4. 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 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 offered no individualized justification demonstrating that materially changed circumstances warrant revoking his release. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8); see also Pacheco, 818 F.Supp.3d at 1179-80. 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 since his arrest on August 4, 2026 and grants his habeas petition requesting immediate release.5. 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"); see also Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005).The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 12. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/22/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#12

Sep 22, 2026

ORDER Granting Habeas Petition [Dkt. 1]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/22/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#13

Sep 22, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Sep 22, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#14

Sep 23, 2026

Declaration