Marvin Jose Guifarro Padilla v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, et al

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 9, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-04543
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARVIN JOSE GUIFARRO PADILLA No. 1:26-cv-04543-KES-FJS (HC) (A-Number: 205 879 003), 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 12 OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REQUIRING v. IMMEDIATE RELEASE 13 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY Doc. 1 14 CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al, 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Marvin Jose Guifarro Padilla is a 20-year-old immigration detainee proceeding 19 pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Doc. 1. The Court has previously addressed the 20 legal issues raised by the petition. See, e.g., Luis Alberto R.C. v. Murray, 817 F. Supp. 3d 917 21 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 22 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 23 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES- 24 HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV- 25 01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025). 26 The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondents to show cause as 27 to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s 28 prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Doc. 5. Respondents acknowledge that 1 this case raises the same due process issues as the cases mentioned above, but they argue that this 2 case is distinct because over two years ago, in 2024, when petitioner was seventeen years old, he 3 was arrested in Florida for possessing a controlled substance and for failure to register a motor 4 vehicle. Doc. 5 at 3; see Doc. 5-2. It appears from the record that petitioner was placed in a pre- 5 trial diversion program for the controlled substance offense and that the charge for failure to 6 register a motor vehicle offense was dropped. See Doc. 5-2. Under Florida law, a first-time 7 offender may be placed in a pre-trial diversion program, and upon the successful completion of 8 the program, the charge is dismissed. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 948.08. Respondents provide no 9 evidence that petitioner failed to satisfactorily complete the diversion program or that petitioner 10 has any conviction. See Doc. 5. 11 Respondents appear to argue that, if the Court grants relief, relief should be limited to a 12 bond hearing, rather than immediate release. See id. But courts typically require evidence of 13 urgent concerns or an especially strong government interest to justify a post-deprivation, rather 14 than a pre-deprivation, hearing. See Guillermo M. R. v. Kaiser, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1036 (N.D. 15 Cal. 2025); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53, 59–61 (1993) (“We 16 tolerate some exceptions to the general rule requiring predeprivation notice and hearing, but only 17 in extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies 18 postponing the hearing until after the event[,]” such as “executive urgency.” (internal quotations 19 omitted)). Respondents do not identify any urgent concerns that would warrant a post- 20 deprivation, rather than pre-deprivation, hearing in this case. 21 As respondents have not identified any pertinent factual or legal issues in this case that 22 would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Luis Alberto R.C. v. Murray, 817 F. Supp. 23 3d 917 (E.D. Cal. 2025), Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 24 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025), Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK 25 (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489- 26 KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025), and Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 27 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025), the petition for 28 writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders. ] Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner Marvin Jose Guifarro Padilla (A- 2 | Number: 205 879 003) immediately. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re- 3 | detaining petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre- 4 | deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decistonmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger 5 || to the community such that his physical custody 1s legally justified. 6 Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with a copy of this Order upon his 7 | release. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. The 9 | Clerk is directed to serve California City Detention Center with a copy of this Order. 10 11 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _ 12 Dated: _ July 9, 2026 4h | | 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28