Rafael Gonzalez-Ramos v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-03159
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL GONZALEZ-RAMOS, Case No.: 26-CV-3159 JLS (GC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of

the Department of Homeland Security, et 15 (ECF No. 8) al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Rafael Gonzalez-Ramos’s Amended Petition for a Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 8). Also before the Court 20 are Respondents’ Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 10) and 21 Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner alleges that he has been detained by the United States Department of 25 Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) division at 26 the Otay Mesa Detention Center since April 2026. Pet. at 1. Petitioner entered the United 27 States at eleven years old and has resided in the United States for the last twenty-five years. 28 Id. at 2. Petitioner attended school in the United States, is married to a U.S. citizen, and 1 has a U.S. citizen daughter. Id. at 3. His wife is currently pregnant with their second U.S.- 2 citizen child. Id. On April 20, 2026, Petitioner was detained by a masked ICE agent when 3 he was attending a court hearing in San Diego. Id. Petitioner alleges that his detention 4 without an administrative warrant violates the process set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 7 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 8 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 9 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 10 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 11 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 12 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 13 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 14 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 15 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 16 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2018) 17 (citations omitted). 18 DISCUSSION 19 Petitioner argues, and Respondents do not contest, that Petitioner’s detention is 20 governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See generally Pet.; Ret. However, the Parties disagree 21 as to whether a bond hearing or release is warranted in this case. See id. Petitioner cites 22 several cases where habeas petitioners have been released based on a failure to issue an 23 administrative warrant pursuant to § 1226(a). See Pet. at 6–7 (citing cases); Traverse at 1– 24 2 (citing cases). Respondents “acknowledge the prior orders from this District directing 25 bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in similar cases,” and therefore, “do not 26 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 27 1226(a).” Ret. at 1–2. Respondents do not address the apparent lack of a warrant in 28 detaining Petitioner. See generally id. 1 The Court finds that release is not the appropriate remedy in this case. Section 2 1226(a) states that, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested 3 and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United 4 States.” In general, “when arrests are made without a warrant, a custody determination 5 must ordinarily be made within 48 hours, accompanied by a notice to appear, and in the 6 case of continued custody a warrant will be issued post hoc.” Lopez-Perez v. Johnson, No. 7 1:26-CV-03083 JLT SAB (HC), 2026 WL 1506818, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2026) 8 (quoting Garcia De Melo v. Stamper, No. 1:26-CV-00152-JAW, 2026 WL 925672, at *5 9 (D. Me. Apr. 6, 2026)). Therefore, as with the Eastern District in Lopez-Perez and the 10 District of Maine in Garcia De Melo, the Court concludes that Respondents’ forty-eight- 11 hour clock to conduct an initial custody determination starts running with the issuance of 12 this Order. As the court in Garcia Del Melo explained, to hold otherwise would “place 13 Respondents in the untenable position in future cases presenting similar circumstances, in 14 which Respondents must decide whether to deliberately violate controlling agency 15 precedent in anticipation of a possible objection a detainee may or may not raise in a future 16 habeas petition not yet before this Court, and then further guess how this Court might rule.” 17 Garcia De Melo, 2026 WL 925672, at *5. The Court thus DENIES the Amended Petition 18 to the extent it seeks release. 19 The Court instead finds that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. Petitioner is 20 a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 21 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025).1 As Respondents agree and do not oppose an order directing a 22 bond hearing, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition to the extent it seeks a bond 23 hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). 24 / / / 25

26 1 On March 6, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the Bautista decision “insofar as 27 the district court’s judgment extends beyond the Central District of California.” Maldonado Bautista, et 28 al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 26-1044, ECF No. 5 (9th Cir. March 6, I CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a 3 || Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 8). The Court ORDERS that within 48 hours of this 4 ||Order, Respondents SHALL CONDUCT an initial custody determination pursuant 5 ||to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which point they may (1) release Petitioner or (2) continue his 6 detention if deemed appropriate. If Petitioner is not released, and no arrest warrant has 7 || been issued, Respondents SHALL SEEK an arrest warrant immediately. If the warrant is 8 granted, Respondents SHALL RELEASE Petitioner immediately. 9 If a warrant is granted, the Government SHALL PROVIDE Petitioner with an 10 || individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the 11 |/initial custody determination, unless Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance. 12 Bond SHALL NOT be denied on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory 13 ||detention. The non-citizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the 14 || evidence, that they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz 15 Garland, 53 F 4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 16 The Parties SHALL FILE (1) a joint status report informing the Court of the 17 || outcome of the custody determination on or before July 6, 2026, and (2) if a warrant is 18 || granted, a joint status report informing the Court of the outcome of the bond hearing or 19 || Petitioner’s request for a continuance on or before July 20, 2026. The Clerk of Court 20 || SHALL CLOSE the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: June 29, 2026 . tt f Le 23 on. Janis L. Sammartino A United States District Judge 25 26 27 28