Domingo Soc Morales v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 2, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01096
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINGO SOC MORALES, No. 2:26-cv-01096-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 14 WARDEN, RESTRAINING ORDER AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2) 16 17 This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order 18 (Doc. No. 2), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his ongoing immigration detention. (Doc. No. 1.) 20 This court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the petition 21 (Doc. No. 1 at 6–8). Specifically, this court has found that a noncitizen who has lived in the 22 United States for an extended period of time without having been admitted is subject to 23 discretionary detention during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled 24 to a pre-deprivation bond hearing under that section. See Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv- 25 01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (granting injunctive relief of 26 immediate release for noncitizen who was detained by U.S. immigration authorities after living in 27 the United States for over twenty years); Barajas Ortiz v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01167-DC-SCR, 28 2026 WL 508419 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United States 1 for over 30 years); Zuniga Cruz v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01818-DC-EFB, Doc. No. 10 (E.D. Cal. 2 Mar. 31, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition as to the 3 petitioner’s Immigration and Nationality Act claim where the petitioner lived in the United States 4 for eight years before his detention). 5 On March 24, 2026, the court issued an order informing the parties that it was considering 6 ruling directly on the petition and asking both parties whether they oppose simultaneous 7 resolution of the motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition. (Doc. No. 5.) The 8 court also directed Respondent to address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 9 that materially distinguish it from this court’s prior orders in Alvarez Maciel and Barajas Ortiz. 10 (Id.) 11 On March 27, 2026, Respondent filed his opposition to Petitioner’s motion for temporary 12 restraining order in which he opposes Petitioner’s motion on the same grounds as those addressed 13 by the court in the aforementioned cases, but acknowledges that “there are no significant factual 14 or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from” Alvarez Maciel and Barajas Ortiz. 15 (Doc. No. 6 at 1.) Respondent further states that he “does not oppose the Court ruling directly on 16 the petition as to Count One to the extent resolution of that claim would entitle Petitioner to the 17 relief sought.” (Id.) Given that Petitioner is proceeding pro se and the court will be granting the 18 relief he seeks, the court will not await the filing of a reply by Petitioner as that would delay the 19 relief he seeks in his petition. 20 Because Respondent has not made any new legal arguments and has not identified any 21 factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the court’s aforementioned prior 22 decisions, the court will grant Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) 23 and petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) as to Count One for the reasons set forth in 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 the court’s order in Zuniga Cruz.1 Further, as the court found in Zuniga Cruz, the proper remedy 2 for Respondent’s failure to provide Petitioner with a statutorily compliant bond hearing is 3 Petitioner’s immediate release. Zuniga Cruz, Doc. No. 10 at 7. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and motion for a 6 temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) are GRANTED as follows: 7 a. Petitioner Domingo Soc Morales shall be released immediately from 8 Respondent’s custody. Respondent shall not impose any additional 9 restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined 10 to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; 11 a. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, they shall provide him with 12 a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(c)(8) at which Petitioner shall 13 bear the burden of showing that he is not a flight risk or a risk to 14 community safety; and 15 b. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondent may 16 detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable 17 final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of 18 removal; 19 ///// 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 1 Because the court is granting the petition on the statutory claim (Count One), the court need not 24 address any additional grounds raised in the petition. See N.K. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00292-KES- SAB (HC), 2026 WL 130345, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (granting habeas petition as to the 25 second count of the petition and not addressing other counts because the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought based on the court’s ruling as to that second count); Constantinovici v. Bondi, 26 No. 3:25-cv-02405-RBM-AHG, 2025 WL 2898985, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) (granting 27 habeas petition based on due process claim and “declin[ing] to address the remaining grounds in the Petition for seeking release”). Indeed, Petitioner is entitled to the habeas relief he seeks based 28 on the court’s ruling as to Count One. ] 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this 2 case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 5 | Dated: _ April 2, 2026 Rvs Dena Coggins 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28