Elhadj Ousmane Ly v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ELHADJ OUSMANE LY No. 1:26-cv-04589-KES-EGC (HC) (A-Number: 245-723-363), 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 10 OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REQUIRING v. IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE Doc. 1 12 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 13 Respondents. 14

15 Petitioner Elhadj Ousmane Ly is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a 16 petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 4. The 17 Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the petition. See, e.g., R.A.N.O. v. 18 Wofford, 820 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2026); Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1098 19 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 20 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025). 21 The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondents to show cause as 22 to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s 23 prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Doc. 7. Respondents “agree that the 24 factual and legal issues present here are not substantively distinguishable to the aforementioned 25 26 cases.” Doc. 9 at 4. While respondents oppose the petition, they do not raise any new arguments. See id. at 1–2.1 27

28 1 Respondents also request, in the alternative, that the Court hold this case in abeyance pending ] As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 2 | factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in 3 | RAN.O. v. Wofford, 820 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2026), Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 4 | 3d 1098 (E.D. Cal. 2025), and Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 5 | 2025 WL 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025), the petition for writ of habeas corpus is 6 | GRANTED, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders. 7 Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner Elhadj Ousmane Ly (A-Number: 245- 8 | 723-363) immediately. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining 9 | petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond 10 | hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community 11 || such that his physical custody is legally justified. 12 Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with a copy of this Order upon his 13 | release. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. The 15 | Clerk is directed to serve Golden State Annex with a copy of this Order. 16 17 | [TIS SO ORDERED. _ 18 Dated: _ June 24, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□ 19 20 21 22 23 | the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.), which appears to concern the issue of whether § 1226(a) or § 1225(b)(2) applies to individuals who entered the country without 24 | inspection, were not apprehended by immigration authorities upon arrival, and are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231. See Doc. 9 at 4. But here 25 immigration officials did previously apprehend petitioner, and they released him after implicitly 26 | determining that he did not pose a flight risk or a danger. The issue is whether the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation hearing prior to his re-detention. Given the different 27 || circumstances in this case, and the nature of the relief petitioner seeks, the Court declines to hold this case in abeyance pending the Rodriguez appeal. 28

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28