Jose Luis Moreno Flores v. Warden of the Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS MORENO FLORES, No. 1:26-cv-01119-KES-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO FILE A RESPONSE 13 v. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 WARDEN OF THE DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14-Day Deadline 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Jose Luis Moreno Flores (“Petitioner”), a federal immigration detainee 18 proceeding pro se, initiated this action on February 9, 2026, with the filing of a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Petitioner is in custody of Immigration and 20 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, located in Bakersfield, 21 California. Id. ¶ 1. 22 Preliminary Screening 23 Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United 24 States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 25 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 26 not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 27 entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 28 Petitioner alleges he has been detained by ICE for over one month and 23 days without 1 being afforded a bond hearing in violation of Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights. (Doc. 2 1 ¶¶ 2-4). According to his allegations, Petitioner is in the process of seeking asylum and has been 3 in ICE custody since December 11, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19, 23. Petitioner alleges that on December 4 11, 2025, he was detained at the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (“ISAP”) office 5 “because [he] received a message [] through the app.” Id. ¶ 23. Petitioner asserts he had been 6 wearing an ankle monitor since February 2025. On December 10, 2025, he was scheduled for a 7 home visit from agents due to a health issue and pain. He left his home to “buy medication at 8 Walgreens” near his residence and, minutes later, he received a call from the agent. He “begged 9 her to wait.” She responded “in a racist tone that she didn’t have time.” Petitioner headed back to 10 his residence, noticed the officer, and entered his home. He “called her, but she didn’t answer.” 11 He went outside and “the vehicle was gone.” Petitioner alleges he committed no infractions for his 12 entire time in the program and has no criminal record. He states that his health conditions are 13 worsened by the difficult conditions of his detainment. Id. 14 Relevant here, “in cases that do not involve a final order of removal, federal habeas corpus 15 jurisdiction remains in the district court” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where the petitioner 16 “challenges his confinement on statutory and constitutional grounds.” Nadaraja v. Gonzales, 443 17 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2006); accord Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 18 2008) (holding “the district court has jurisdiction over Torres’s habeas petition challenging his 19 detention” in ICE custody). 20 There is no information in the petition to establish whether Petitioner is the subject of a final 21 order of removal. Accordingly, because Petitioner appears to challenge his immigration detention 22 on statutory and constitutional grounds, the Court preliminarily concludes that Petitioner’s petition 23 is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, because Petitioner was incarcerated at Mesa 24 Verde Detention Facility at the time of filing, and that facility lies within the Eastern District of 25 California, this Court has jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the petition. Malone v. Calderon, 26 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus 27 ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241); see, e.g., Doe v. Garland, 109 28 F.4th 1188, 1197-99 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that the Eastern District of California exercises 1 | jurisdiction over core habeas corpus petitions filed by petitioners confined at a facility within this 2 | district). 3 Conclusion and Order 4 This Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition. It is not clear from the face 5 | of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. Accordingly, pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the 6 | Court HEREBY ORDERS: 7 1. Respondents SHALL FILE a response addressing the merits or seeking dismissal of the 8 Petition within 14 days of the date of service of this order. Respondents SHALL 9 INCLUDE with the response any and all transcripts or other documents, including 10 documents from Petitioner’s A-File (such as notices to appear and orders relating to any 11 release of Petitioner by DHS/ICE) relevant to the resolution of the issues presented in 12 the petition. Habeas Rule 5. 13 2. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE to any Answer or OPPOSITION to any Motion to Dismiss 14 filed by Respondents is due on or before 14 days from the date Respondents’ filing. 15 All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless 16 | otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(g). All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable 17 | to this Order. 18 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 11, 2026 | Wr bY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28