Lorenzo Venigno Martinez Reyes (A No. 221-489-621) v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORENZO VENIGNO MARTINEZ Case No. 1:26-cv-02334-JLT-CDB REYES (A No. 221-489-621), 12 ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR Petitioner, HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING 13 RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE v. SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING1 14 PAMELA BONDI, et al., (Docs. 1, 3.) 15 Respondents. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court for decision is Lorenzo Venigno Martinez Reyes’s request for a 19 temporary restraining order (Doc. 3), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas 20 corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) The 21 government filed a response to the TRO and the underlying petition, asserting only that the 22 petitioner is subject to mandatory detention, a legal position that this Court has rejected 23 repeatedly. (Doc. 10.) Thus, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every 26 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)

27 1 The respondents reported that no further briefing was requested as to the underlying petition. (Doc. 10 at 28 2.) Because the Court orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing and grants the 1 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the 2 power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or 3 laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens 4 in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. 5 R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025). 6 III. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7 Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2000 without being 8 encountered by federal immigration officials. (Doc. 1 at 7.) On February 12, 2026, Petitioner 9 was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is currently being detained at the 10 California City Detention Facility in California City, California. (Id.) 11 The government filed a response to the petition and issuance of preliminary injunctive 12 relief, arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set 13 forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See generally Doc. 10.) Respondents offer little to rebut 14 Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any justification for detaining Petitioner and 15 make no effort to distinguish this current case from the numerous cases issued by the 16 undersigned, finding this legal position to be incorrect and the detention unlawful. J.S.H.M. v. 17 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. 18 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); 19 M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT (HC), 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 20 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 21 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. 24 Jan. 20, 2026). Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation 25 hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even still, because there is at 26 least a colorable basis for his arrest, the Court ORDERS: 27 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the 28 orders cited above; 1 2 2. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a 3 | later date, Respondent SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an 4 | immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 5 | 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence 6 | that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond,” id. at 7 | 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so 8 | great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider 9 | Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 10 | 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). If Respondents fail to provide a timely bond hearing in 11 || accordance with this order, Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for 13 | Petitioner. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: _ April 8, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28