Glenn Arnaldo Pardo Escobar v. Markwayne Mullin; et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLENN ARNALDO PARDO Case No.: 26cv3312-LL-DEB ESCOBAR, 12 ORDER GRANTING PETITION Petitioner, 13 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. [ECF No. 7]; 14

MARKWAYNE MULLIN; et al., 15 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Respondents. EMERGENCY MOTION TO 16 ENJOIN TRANSFER [ECF No. 2] 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Glenn Arnaldo Pardo Escobar’s operative Amended 20 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 7 (“Pet.”). 21 The Government filed a Return. ECF No. 10 (“Ret.”). Mr. Escobar filed a Traverse. ECF 22 No. 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Mr. Escobar’s Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus and DENIES AS MOOT his Emergency Motion to Enjoin 24 Transfer (ECF No. 2). 25 The Government acknowledges that Petitioner was previously released on parole. 26 ECF No. 10 at 2. The Government does not, however, contend that Petitioner's parole was 27 lawfully revoked or terminated. The Government does not claim that Petitioner is a flight 28 risk or a danger to the community. 1 Due process for the revocation of release requires (1) a decision by an appropriate 2 official on whether the purpose of release has been served; (2) written notice of the reasons 3 for the revocation; and (3) a fair opportunity to rebut the reasons given for the revocation. 4 See Noori v. LaRose, 807 F.Supp.3d 1146, 1165 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (“Petitioner was entitled 5 to due process in his parole revocation. Particularly, he was entitled to both notification of 6 revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also an opportunity to be heard and 7 contest the determination.”); Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1146 (D. Or. 2025) 8 (“[A]s a noncitizen with connections in the United States who is no longer at the threshold 9 of initial entry, Petitioner is entitled to due process rights.” (quotation marks and citation 10 omitted)). Respondents failed to comply with these due process requirements, and thus 11 Petitioner is entitled to be released. Petitioner is also entitled to be released because 12 Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community. 13 See Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (“Civil immigration 14 detention is permissible only to prevent flight or protect against danger to the 15 community.”). 16 For the reasons stated, Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner 17 from custody under any preexisting conditions of his conditional parole. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Mr. Pardo Escobar’s Petition for Writ 20 of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 7) as follows: 21 1. The Court ORDERS the Government to immediately release Mr. Pardo 22 Escobar from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting release. 23 2. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Mr. Pardo Escobar, that Mr. 24 Pardo Escobar is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his release 25 and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention 26 is warranted. The Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear 27 28 l and convincing evidence, that Mr. Pardo Escobar poses a danger to the 2 community or a risk of flight.! 3 3. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Enjoin 4 Transfer [ECF No. 2]. 5 4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Mr. Pardo Escobar’s favor and 6 close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: June 23, 2026 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || 26 This relief has been granted in similar matters. See, e.g., Alvarenga Matute, 807 F. Supp. 27 || 3d at 1133; Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1038; Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1097 28 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Martinez Hernandez v. Andrews, No. 25-CV-1035 JLT HBK, 2025 WL 2495767, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025).