William Alexander Perez-Villamarin v. Warden Rokosky, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 William Alexander Perez-Villamarin, No. CV-26-01527-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Warden Rokosky, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 Self-represented Petitioner William Alexander Perez-Villamarin, who is confined 16 in the Eloy Detention Center, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) challenging his immigration detention and an Application to 18 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and 19 dismiss the Petition and this action. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates his inmate trust 22 account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s 23 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See LRCiv 3.5(c). 24 II. Petitioner’s Current Petition 25 Petitioner alleges he has been in immigration custody since November 13, 2025; 26 had a bond hearing on January 21, 2026;* and the immigration judge denied bond, despite 27 28 * On December 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his immigration detention. See Perez-Villamarin v. Noem, CV-25-04822-PHX-MTL (JZB) (D. Ariz.). In a January 14, 2026 Order, the Court granted the petition and ordered 1 | Petitioner having a sponsor and “all the requiring grounds to have the bond granted” and despite his detainment being “unreasonably long.” Petitioner claims he is “being detained 3 regardless [of] his legal grounds or interests,” he “has not received a meaningful 4| individualized bond/custody hearing,” and his continued detention “without timely, meaningful individualized review” is “punitive [in] nature” and violates the Fifth 6 | Amendment. 7 An Immigration Judge’s discretionary bond determination is typically not 8 | reviewable in federal court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (“The Attorney General’s discretionary 9 judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court 10 | may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding 11) the detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole.”). Nevertheless, courts retain jurisdiction to consider claims that the legal framework governing detention 13 | fails to provide due process. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 781 (9th Cir. 2024). 14 | But based on the current record, the Court cannot conclude the legal framework employed 15 | by the Immigration Judge was itself a violation of due process. “A district judge may not 16 | second-guess the immigration judge’s weighing of the evidence.” Calmo v. Sessions, 17 | CV-17-07124-WHA, 2018 WL 2938628, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2018). The Court, 18 | therefore, will deny the Petition. 19| ITIS ORDERED: 20 (1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 21 (2) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. The Clerk of 22 | Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 23 Dated this 9th day of March, 2026. 24 □

Michael T, Liburdi 26 United States District Judge a7 respondents to either provide Petitioner a bond redetermination hearing or release him from 28 | custody. On January 23, 2026, respondents notified the Court that Petitioner had received a bond hearing on January 21, 2026. -2-