Jose Paz Molina v. Gregory J. Archambeault, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Jose Paz Molina filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention and the denial of a bond hearing. The court ordered the respondents to file a response to the petition by December 26, 2025, finding that the petition was sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to habeas petition“By December 26, 2025, respondent must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, as applied to § 2241 petitions. The court found that the petition was not 'clearly not cognizable' and had 'potential merit,' citing a significant body of recent district court decisions across the country that have found petitioners likely to succeed on the merits of similar claims regarding the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) versus § 1225(b)(2). Given the volume of favorable precedent cited, the decision to require a response rather than summarily dismiss is well-supported by the record and the law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and applies it to the specific facts of the petition. The court provides a robust factual and legal basis for its decision by citing a substantial number of recent, persuasive district court decisions from various jurisdictions that have reached the same conclusion on the underlying statutory issue. This demonstrates that the petition is not frivolous and warrants a full response from the government.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jose PAZ MOLINA, Case No.: 25-cv-3629-AGS-MMP 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Gregory J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Jose Paz Molina seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 10 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is 11 sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 12 the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly 13 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 14 relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to 15 any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary 16 dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 17 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is 18 not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 Paz Molina “is a citizen of Honduras who has been in immigration detention since 20 November 4, 2025.” (ECF 1, at 5.) He claims he “is a member” of a class certified in 21 “Maldonado Bautista.” (Id. at 3.) “The declaratory judgment held that the Bond Denial 22 Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and thus may not be denied 23 consideration for release on bond under § 1225(b)(2)(A).” (Id. at 2.) “Nonetheless, the 24 Executive Office for Immigration Review and its subagency the Immigration Court and 25 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have blatantly refused to abide by the 26 declaratory relief and have unlawfully ordered that Petitioner be denied the opportunity to 27 be released on bond.” (Id. at 2–3.) So, “[b]y denying Petitioner a bond hearing under 28 § 1226(a) and asserting that he is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), 1 Respondents violate Petitioner's statutory rights under the INA and the Court’s judgment 2 ||in Maldonado Bautista.” (Id. at 7.) 3 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Whether the 4 || opinion in Maldonado Bautista 1s a final judgment or otherwise supports collateral estoppel 5 || or res judicata is an open question. More to the point, functionally identical cases across 6 || the country have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the merits” or have resulted 7 ||in the writ being issued on the underlying issue of whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies to 8 || petitioner’s custody. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, __ F. Supp. 3d. __, No. 25- 9 || cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” 10 |/of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “have prevailed, either on a 11 preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges 12 sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-02304 CAS 13 ||(BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[P]etitioners are likely to 14 || succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2), likely 15 governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 16 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv- 17 05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“[T]he government’s 18 || position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory interpretation, legislative 19 || history, and longstanding agency practice.”). 20 By December 26, 2025, respondent must answer the petition. Any reply by 21 petitioner must be filed by January 2, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 22 || petition on January 9, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. 23 || Dated: December 17, 2025 5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 26 27 28