Horalia Flores Hernandez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.

S.D. California

Horalia Flores Hernandez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.

DecidedJune 9, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-03277

StatusUnknown

This text of Horalia Flores Hernandez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al. (Horalia Flores Hernandez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horalia Flores Hernandez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 HORALIA FLORES HERNANDEZ, Case No. 26-cv-03277-BAS-DDL

14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 15 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 16 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 17 Respondents. 18

20 Petitioner Horalia Flores Hernandez filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 2241, requesting a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded to the Petition, 22 indicating that it does not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing pursuant 23 to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 24 Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 14 days. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 27 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 28 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 1 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 2 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 3 The writ is available to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 4 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since she is seeking release 5 from custody, she has standing to pursue this Petition. 6 II. ANALYSIS 7 Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in the year 2000, without 8 inspection. (Petition ¶¶ 2, 19, ECF No. 1.) She has lived in the United States since then. 9 (Id.) Petitioner married in the United States and has five U.S. citizen children. (Id. ¶ 21.) 10 She has been gainfully employed in the United States for the past twenty years and paid 11 taxes during that time period. (Id.) She has no felony criminal history and, other than the 12 arrest detailed below, has no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 22.) 13 On April 28, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in the interior of the United States for 14 driving without a license and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement 15 (“ICE”). (Id. ¶ 3.) An Immigration Judge denied her request for bond, relying on Matter of 16 Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Id. ¶ 5.) 17 The Central District of California certified a class of which Petitioner was initially a 18 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 19 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit has stayed application of 20 the class to any members outside the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista v. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has 22 previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the court in Maldonado Bautista that 23 an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 24 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. 25 Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 26 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 27 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). The Government concedes that Petitioner is entitled to an order 28 1 || from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 2 3 Hence, for all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS 4 || the Petition. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 7 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Horalia 8 Flores Hernandez (A# 222-561-422) within 14 days of the date of this Order. 9 The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). If no bond hearing is held within 14 days, Petitioner is ordered released 10 forthwith. 11 The Clerk is directed to close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || DATED: June 9, 2026 (alla Bahar 15 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Qe

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 HORALIA FLORES HERNANDEZ, Case No. 26-cv-03277-BAS-DDL

14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 15 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 16 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 17 Respondents. 18

20 Petitioner Horalia Flores Hernandez filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 2241, requesting a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded to the Petition, 22 indicating that it does not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing pursuant 23 to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 24 Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 14 days. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 27 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 28 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 1 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 2 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 3 The writ is available to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 4 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since she is seeking release 5 from custody, she has standing to pursue this Petition. 6 II. ANALYSIS 7 Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in the year 2000, without 8 inspection. (Petition ¶¶ 2, 19, ECF No. 1.) She has lived in the United States since then. 9 (Id.) Petitioner married in the United States and has five U.S. citizen children. (Id. ¶ 21.) 10 She has been gainfully employed in the United States for the past twenty years and paid 11 taxes during that time period. (Id.) She has no felony criminal history and, other than the 12 arrest detailed below, has no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 22.) 13 On April 28, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in the interior of the United States for 14 driving without a license and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement 15 (“ICE”). (Id. ¶ 3.) An Immigration Judge denied her request for bond, relying on Matter of 16 Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Id. ¶ 5.) 17 The Central District of California certified a class of which Petitioner was initially a 18 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 19 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit has stayed application of 20 the class to any members outside the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista v. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has 22 previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the court in Maldonado Bautista that 23 an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 24 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. 25 Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 26 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 27 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). The Government concedes that Petitioner is entitled to an order 28 1 || from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 2 3 Hence, for all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS 4 || the Petition. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 7 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Horalia 8 Flores Hernandez (A# 222-561-422) within 14 days of the date of this Order. 9 The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). If no bond hearing is held within 14 days, Petitioner is ordered released 10 forthwith. 11 The Clerk is directed to close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || DATED: June 9, 2026 (alla Bahar 15 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Qe

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Horalia Flores Hernandez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horalia-flores-hernandez-v-christopher-j-larose-et-al-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack