Oscar Lemus Martinez v. Warden Christopher Larose

S.D. California

Oscar Lemus Martinez v. Warden Christopher Larose

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 5, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-00658·Unknown

Opinion

OSCAR LEMUS MARTINEZ, Case No. 26-cv-00658-BAS-BLM

Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING THE v. GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) Respondent. Petitioner Oscar Lemus Martinez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is self-represented. He claims that he has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement “since May 27, 2025,” but it appears that he was not detained at the border. (See id.) Petitioner alleges that he received a bond hearing on August 1, 2025, where the Immigration Judge granted bond, but the Government appealed the ruling. (Id.) It appears that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) set aside the bond ruling. (See id.) Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than February 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. The Government must also address whether Petitioner is a member of the class ) under the Central District’s decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873- SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), as well as whether the BIA applied Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 1. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), to Petitioner’s case. 2. No Reply from Petitioner will be necessary unless requested by the Court. 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. DATED: February 5, 2026 (atta Bahar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court

~_9_

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

OSCAR LEMUS MARTINEZ, Case No. 26-cv-00658-BAS-BLM

Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING THE v. GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) Respondent. Petitioner Oscar Lemus Martinez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is self-represented. He claims that he has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement “since May 27, 2025,” but it appears that he was not detained at the border. (See id.) Petitioner alleges that he received a bond hearing on August 1, 2025, where the Immigration Judge granted bond, but the Government appealed the ruling. (Id.) It appears that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) set aside the bond ruling. (See id.) Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than February 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. The Government must also address whether Petitioner is a member of the class ) under the Central District’s decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873- SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), as well as whether the BIA applied Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 1. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), to Petitioner’s case. 2. No Reply from Petitioner will be necessary unless requested by the Court. 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. DATED: February 5, 2026 (atta Bahar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court

~_9_

Oscar Lemus Martinez v. Warden Christopher Larose, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Oscar Lemus Martinez v. Warden Christopher Larose (Oscar Lemus Martinez v. Warden Christopher Larose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related