Fedlin Devilmar v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE; and Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 9 In light of Petitioner’s pro se status and the liberty interests at issue, the Court finds 10 it prudent to follow suit of its sister courts and address the Petition on the meri
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee at Otay Mesa Detention Center. The court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide the petitioner with a bond determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition as follows: (1) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this Order.” | agree with court The court relied on the final judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, which the respondents acknowledged, to determine that the petitioner is a class member detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The order to provide a bond hearing follows directly from this statutory classification and the precedent set in the class action. |
Jurisdictional objection regarding failure to name the warden denied/overruled“In light of Petitioner’s pro se status and the liberty interests at issue, the Court finds it prudent to follow suit of its sister courts and address the Petition on the merits rather than dismiss the Petition.” | agree with court The court declined to dismiss the case on technical jurisdictional grounds (failure to name the correct respondent) in favor of addressing the merits, citing the petitioner's pro se status and the significance of the liberty interest. This is a discretionary procedural choice consistent with federal habeas practice for pro se litigants. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petitioner's detention based on the acknowledged class action judgment. The decision to bypass the technical jurisdictional defect in favor of the merits is a recognized judicial practice for pro se habeas petitions to ensure access to the courts. The relief ordered is specific and time-bound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FEDLIN DEVILMAR, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0009-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 2241 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 15 ENFORCEMENT ICE; AND OTAY [ECF No. 1] 16 MESA DETENTION CENTER 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Fedlin Devilmar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, 28 Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 4. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Jurisdiction 3 In the Response to the Petition, Respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction 4 over this Petition because Petitioner failed to name the warden of Otay Mesa Detention 5 Center as a Respondent. ECF No. 4 at 2. This issue has recently addressed by the 6 undersigned in Guatam v. Corr. Corp of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 7 25846, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). Therefore, the Court elects to follow its reasoning in 8 Guatam and incorporates it by reference. 2026 WL 25846, at *2. 9 In light of Petitioner’s pro se status and the liberty interests at issue, the Court finds 10 it prudent to follow suit of its sister courts and address the Petition on the merits rather than 11 dismiss the Petition. 12 B. Petitioner is a Maldonado Bautista Class Member 13 Respondents acknowledged that Petitioner must be considered detained under 8 14 U.S.C. § 1226(a), pursuant to the final judgment entered in Maldonado Bautista v. 15 Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3289861 (C.D. 16 Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition as follows: 17 (1) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond 18 determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this 19 Order. At the hearing, Respondents may not deny Petitioner bond on the 20 basis that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and 21 (2) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five 22 days of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing, 23 including apprising the Court of the results of the hearing; and 24 (3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the suit after receipt of 25 Respondents’ Notice. 26 // 27 // 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: January 16, 2026 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 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