1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDUARDO VILLANO DE JESUS, Case No.: 26cv2958-LL-MMP
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, WARDEN UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AT THE OTAY MESA DETENTION 15 CENTER, et al.,
16 Respondents. [ECF No. 6] 17
18 Before the Court is Petitioner Eduardo Villano De Jesus’ Second Amended Petition 19 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting immediate release because 20 he was arrested without an administrative warrant. ECF No. 6 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed 21 a Return in opposition to the Petition (“Ret.”) in which they indicated that they “do not 22 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 23 1226(a).” ECF No. 7. Petitioner filed a Traverse in which he argued that the Government 24 failed to address his request for immediate release because of the lack of an administrative 25 warrant and, thus, he should be released rather than granted a bond hearing. ECF No. 8. 26 The Court ordered the Government to respond to Petitioner’s argument that he was arrested 27 without an administrative warrant. ECF No. 9. The Government filed a Supplemental Brief 28 1 attaching an administrative warrant that was served upon Petitioner on November 3, 2025, 2 the day that he was arrested. ECF No. 10, Ex. 1. The Government reiterated that 3 “Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible 4 Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. 5 Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 32288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025)” and that “Respondents do not 6 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 7 § 1226(a).” ECF No. 10 at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN 8 PART the Second Amended Petition and ORDERS that Petitioner be given a bond hearing 9 within seven (7) days. 10 I. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be “in 12 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing 14 the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been 15 strongest.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (quoting I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 16 U.S. 289, 301 (2001)). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within 17 the purview of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 18 (2001) (“Section 2441 habeas proceedings are available as a forum for statutory and 19 constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.”); see also Lopez-Marroquin 20 v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to immigration detention that are sufficiently 22 independent of the merits of [a] removal order.”). 23 II. ANALYSIS 24 Petitioner, a native of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2001 25 and has since lived in New York. Pet. at 3; see also ECF No. 6-1, Decl. of Eduardo Villano 26 de Jesus (“Jesus Decl.”) ¶ 1. On November 2, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. 27 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers while he was walking to work. 28 Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 2. The ICE officers drove by in an unmarked car and stopped and 1 asked Petitioner for documentation. Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 2. The ICE officers took 2 Petitioner into custody and eventually took him to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where 3 he has been detained for nearly seven months. Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 2. Petitioner does not 4 have any criminal convictions and has never been deported. Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 1. 5 Petitioner states that “he has never been shown a warrant, and it appears he was arrested 6 without one.” Pet. at 10. However, in the Government’s Supplemental Briefing filed on 7 June 23, 2026, the Government states that “Petitioner was detained on November 3, 2025” 8 and “[o]n the same day, Petitioner was served with an administrative warrant on November 9 3, 2025.” ECF No. 10 at 2; see also Ex. 1. Since his detention in November 2025, Petitioner 10 has not received a bond determination hearing. Jesus Decl. ¶ 4. 11 The Central District of California certified a class of which Petitioner was initially a 12 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 13 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit has stayed application of 14 the class to any members outside the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista v. 15 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has 16 previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the court in Maldonado Bautista that 17 an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 18 1225. 19 As a noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been living in the United States 20 for over 25 years, Petitioner was and is subject to Section 1226(a). Section 1226(a) states 21 in relevant part that a noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision on 22 whether the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). By 23 contrast, Section 1225(b) applies to noncitizens arriving at the border or who very recently 24 entered the United States. See Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 25 3078837, at *4-7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). As the Supreme Court explained, the 26 government may “detain certain [noncitizens] seeking admission into the country under 27 Sections 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2),” while Section 1226(a) allows the government to “detain 28 1 certain [noncitizens] already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings.” 2 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (emphasis added). 3 For all of the reasons stated in its previous opinions on this issue, including but not 4 limited to Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *4-7, the Court 5 agrees Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge pursuant to § 6 1226(a). However, to the extent Petitioner requests immediate release because of the lack 7 of an administrative warrant, the Court denies the request. The Government has presented 8 evidence that Petitioner was provided with an administrative warrant on the same day that 9 he was detained. ECF No. 10, Ex. 1. 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART. 13 2. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 14 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDUARDO VILLANO DE JESUS, Case No.: 26cv2958-LL-MMP
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, WARDEN UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AT THE OTAY MESA DETENTION 15 CENTER, et al.,
16 Respondents. [ECF No. 6] 17
18 Before the Court is Petitioner Eduardo Villano De Jesus’ Second Amended Petition 19 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting immediate release because 20 he was arrested without an administrative warrant. ECF No. 6 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed 21 a Return in opposition to the Petition (“Ret.”) in which they indicated that they “do not 22 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 23 1226(a).” ECF No. 7. Petitioner filed a Traverse in which he argued that the Government 24 failed to address his request for immediate release because of the lack of an administrative 25 warrant and, thus, he should be released rather than granted a bond hearing. ECF No. 8. 26 The Court ordered the Government to respond to Petitioner’s argument that he was arrested 27 without an administrative warrant. ECF No. 9. The Government filed a Supplemental Brief 28 1 attaching an administrative warrant that was served upon Petitioner on November 3, 2025, 2 the day that he was arrested. ECF No. 10, Ex. 1. The Government reiterated that 3 “Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible 4 Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. 5 Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 32288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025)” and that “Respondents do not 6 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 7 § 1226(a).” ECF No. 10 at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN 8 PART the Second Amended Petition and ORDERS that Petitioner be given a bond hearing 9 within seven (7) days. 10 I. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be “in 12 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing 14 the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been 15 strongest.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (quoting I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 16 U.S. 289, 301 (2001)). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within 17 the purview of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 18 (2001) (“Section 2441 habeas proceedings are available as a forum for statutory and 19 constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.”); see also Lopez-Marroquin 20 v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to immigration detention that are sufficiently 22 independent of the merits of [a] removal order.”). 23 II. ANALYSIS 24 Petitioner, a native of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2001 25 and has since lived in New York. Pet. at 3; see also ECF No. 6-1, Decl. of Eduardo Villano 26 de Jesus (“Jesus Decl.”) ¶ 1. On November 2, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. 27 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers while he was walking to work. 28 Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 2. The ICE officers drove by in an unmarked car and stopped and 1 asked Petitioner for documentation. Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 2. The ICE officers took 2 Petitioner into custody and eventually took him to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where 3 he has been detained for nearly seven months. Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 2. Petitioner does not 4 have any criminal convictions and has never been deported. Pet. at 3; Jesus Decl. ¶ 1. 5 Petitioner states that “he has never been shown a warrant, and it appears he was arrested 6 without one.” Pet. at 10. However, in the Government’s Supplemental Briefing filed on 7 June 23, 2026, the Government states that “Petitioner was detained on November 3, 2025” 8 and “[o]n the same day, Petitioner was served with an administrative warrant on November 9 3, 2025.” ECF No. 10 at 2; see also Ex. 1. Since his detention in November 2025, Petitioner 10 has not received a bond determination hearing. Jesus Decl. ¶ 4. 11 The Central District of California certified a class of which Petitioner was initially a 12 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 13 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit has stayed application of 14 the class to any members outside the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista v. 15 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has 16 previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the court in Maldonado Bautista that 17 an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 18 1225. 19 As a noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been living in the United States 20 for over 25 years, Petitioner was and is subject to Section 1226(a). Section 1226(a) states 21 in relevant part that a noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision on 22 whether the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). By 23 contrast, Section 1225(b) applies to noncitizens arriving at the border or who very recently 24 entered the United States. See Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 25 3078837, at *4-7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). As the Supreme Court explained, the 26 government may “detain certain [noncitizens] seeking admission into the country under 27 Sections 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2),” while Section 1226(a) allows the government to “detain 28 1 certain [noncitizens] already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings.” 2 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (emphasis added). 3 For all of the reasons stated in its previous opinions on this issue, including but not 4 limited to Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *4-7, the Court 5 agrees Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge pursuant to § 6 1226(a). However, to the extent Petitioner requests immediate release because of the lack 7 of an administrative warrant, the Court denies the request. The Government has presented 8 evidence that Petitioner was provided with an administrative warrant on the same day that 9 he was detained. ECF No. 10, Ex. 1. 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART. 13 2. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 14 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the 15 date of this order (unless Petitioner requests a continuance). 16 a. At any such hearing, the immigration judge SHALL NOT deny 17 Petitioner bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires 18 mandatory detention. 19 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 20 release and Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond 21 is appropriate. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990–91 (9th 22 Cir. 2017). 23 c. Respondent SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing 24 available to Petitioner and his counsel. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 25 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh, 638 F.3d at 1200). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / l 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this 2 || case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: June 24, 2026 MO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28