Juan Francisco Gonzalez-Monreal v. Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-01577
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN FRANCISCO GONZALEZ- Case No.: 26-cv-1577-RSH-JLB MONREAL, 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION Petitioner, 13 v. [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 14 PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, et 15 al., 16 Respondents. 17

18 On March 12, 2026, petitioner Juan Francisco Gonzalez Monreal filed a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner 20 has also filed motions to appoint counsel and for a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 21 2, 3. 22 Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may 23 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 24 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the 25 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 26 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 27 Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary 28 | ||dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 2 || attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also 3 || Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas 4 || proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district 5 || court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). 6 Petitioner alleges that he was arrested and taken into immigration custody on 7 || October 20, 2025, and is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San 8 || Diego, California, pending his removal hearing. ECF No. | at 1. Petitioner contends that 9 || pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), he 10 || must be released from immigration custody because there is no significant likelihood that 11 can be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. ECF No. | at 1-2. In Zadvydas, 12 ||the Supreme Court construed 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), the statutory provision authorizing 13 detention of a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal beyond the 90-day removal 14 || period, and concluded that the “statute, read in light of the Constitution’s demands, limits 15 |/an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about 16 || that alien’s removal from the United States.” Jd. at 689. However, Zadvydas does not apply 17 || here because Petitioner is not subject to a final order of removal; instead, he is awaiting his 18 |/removal hearing. Nor does the length of Petitioner’s custody to date—less than five 19 ||months—without more raise due process concerns of prolonged detention. 20 Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED. In light of this disposition, the Court 21 ||DENIES as moot Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2] and motion for a 22 ||temporary restraining order [ECF No. 3]. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: March 16, 2026 25 [eebuet Home %6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 27 28