Jose Felix Yunganaula Lucero v. Pamela Bondi, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition filed by an ICE detainee alleging detention without a bond hearing in violation of the INA and the Fifth Amendment. The court ordered the respondents to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within 14 days, based on the respondents' acknowledgment that the petitioner is entitled to such a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days.“The Court thus ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations within 14 days of the date of this order.” | agree with court The order relies on the Respondents' supplemental brief acknowledging that the Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to a bond hearing. Because the Respondents conceded the entitlement to the relief requested, the court's order to grant that relief follows logically from the record presented in the order. |
Order requiring Respondents to notify the Court of the status of the bond hearing by January 14, 2026.“Respondents are further ORDERED to notify this Court on the status of Petitioner’s bond hearing by January 14, 2026.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive to ensure compliance with the primary order. It is a standard case management measure appropriate for the court to issue. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the pending motion, cites the relevant statutory authority (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)), and relies on the Respondents' own concession (via supplemental brief) that the Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief. The court does not need to engage in complex legal analysis when the opposing party concedes the merits of the claim. The order is concise and directly addresses the relief requested.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE FELIX YUNGANAULA Case No.: 3:25-cv-3675-CAB-JLB LUCERO, 12 ORDER REQUIRING A BOND Petitioner, 13 HEARING v. 14 PAMELA BONDI, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pending before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Jose Nevarez Ortiz (“Petitioner”). [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner asserts 19 he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) without a bond 20 hearing in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment. [Id. 21 at 9–10.] On December 26, 2025, Respondents filed a supplemental brief stating that: 22 Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 23 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. 24 Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). The Bautista court has entered final judgement as to the Bond Eligible Class. Bautista, 25 ECF No. 94. Accordingly, Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner is 26 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and [is] entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 27 [Doc. No. 5 at 2.] 28 1 The Court thus ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond 2 ||hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated 3 ||regulations within 14 days of the date of this order. Respondents are further ORDERED 4 || to notify this Court on the status of Petitioner’s bond hearing by January 14, 2026. 5 It is SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 29, 2025 □ Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28