Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO ALFREDO GIMENEZ GIL, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03279-DMS-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On November 25, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1). Respondents filed a return (“Return”). (Return, ECF No. 19 7). Petitioner did not file a reply. 20 Respondents represented in their Return that on July 13, 2024, Petitioner was placed 21 in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, issued a Notice to Appear, and released 22 from custody on humanitarian parole. (Return 2). On June 24, 2025, Petitioner’s case was 23 dismissed during an immigration court appearance. (Id.). On the same day, Petitioner was 24 detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issued a new Notice and Order of 25 Expedited Removal, and placed in expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 26 1225(b)(1). (Id.). Respondents did not parole Petitioner. (See id.). Petitioner then 27 requested asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture. (Id.). Petitioner 28 1 was interviewed by a Citizenship and Immigration services asylum who made a “positive 2 determination” on Petitioner’s case. (Id. at 2–3). Petitioner was issued a new Notice to 3 Appear, re-charged with inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and re-placed in 4 removal proceedings under § 1229a. (Id. at 3). He has since been mandatorily detained 5 under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). (Id.). 6 The Petition asserts that Petitioner’s detention violates the Fifth and Fourteenth 7 Amendment’s Due Process Clauses and the Eighth Amendment’s protection against 8 excessive punishment. (Pet. 2–4). Petitioner mainly argues that the length of his detention 9 is unconstitutional. (See id.). Without deciding the merits of Petitioner’s argument, the 10 Court finds that dismissing Petitioner’s pending removal proceedings and soon thereafter 11 initiating new expedited removal proceedings without providing parole or an opportunity 12 to be heard may raise due process concerns under Mathews v. Eldridge. 424 U.S. 319 13 (1976); see Noori v. Larose, No. 25-cv-1824, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11–12 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 14 1, 2025); Munoz Materano v. Arteta, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 2630826, *11–16 15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2025). It appears this practice has been increasingly employed 16 following the implementation of the January 2025 Designation, Office of the Secretary, 17 Dep’t of Homeland Security, Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 15 Fed. Reg. 18 8139 (“2025 Designation”). Noori, 2025 WL 2800149, at *4–5. 19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a supplemental return, no later 20 than Friday, December 12, 2025, at 4:30 PM, addressing the following issues: 21 (1) whether Petitioner’s parole was revoked prior to the dismissal of his removal 22 proceedings on June 24, 2025; 23 (2) whether the dismissal of Petitioner’s removal proceedings and initiation of 24 expedited removal proceedings without parole or an opportunity to be heard violates 25 Petitioner’s due process rights under Mathews v. Eldridge; and 26 (3) whether the 2025 Designation applies to individuals, like Petitioner, who entered 27 the United States prior to its effective date. 28 1 Petitioner may file a reply no later than Monday, December 15, 2025, at 4:30 PM.! 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ||Dated: December 9, 2025 4 2 Yn. Lh) Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Because Petitioner did not file an initial reply, Petitioner may not respond to arguments contained in Respondents’ initial Return.