Julio Adrian Ruiz Zazueta v. Todd M. Lyons, Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; John Rathman, Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Center; Pam Bondi, Attorney General, Department of Justice; and Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee who was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) but argued he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court granted the petition, enjoining detention under § 1225 and ordering an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a) within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted on the first claim; writ issued.“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the first claim and the writ is ISSUED.” | agree with court The court relies on the class relief granted in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz and its own recent decisions (Garcia-Donis, Amaya) to determine that the petitioner, as a long-term resident apprehended in the interior, is not an applicant for admission and thus cannot be denied a bond hearing under § 1226(a) based on a § 1225 classification. This follows the legal framework established in the cited district court cases. |
Respondents enjoined from detaining petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.“The Respondents are enjoined from detaining Ruiz Zazueta under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.” | agree with court The injunction is a direct consequence of the court's holding that the petitioner is entitled to a § 1226(a) bond hearing and is not properly detained under § 1225. |
Respondents ordered to provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 14 days.“The Respondents must also provide him with an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order.” | agree with court The order specifies the type of hearing, the decision-maker, and the statutory basis, consistent with the relief granted in the cited class action and recent district court decisions. |
Respondents enjoined from denying bond based on mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).“The Respondents shall not deny his bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) requires mandatory detention.” | agree with court This prohibition aligns with the court's holding that the petitioner is not subject to § 1225(b) mandatory detention. |
Respondents ordered to release petitioner from custody in the absence of a bond hearing as ordered.“In the absence of a bond hearing as ordered, the Respondents shall release Ruiz Zazueta from custody.” | agree with court This is a standard enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the bond hearing order. |
Remaining claims dismissed without prejudice as moot.“The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as moot.” | agree with court Since the primary relief (bond hearing) was granted, other claims seeking similar or related relief are rendered moot. Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. |
Hearing on January 30, 2026, vacated.“The hearing on January 30, 2026, is VACATED.” | agree with court Procedural step following the grant of the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a straightforward application of recent district court precedent (Maldonado Bautista, Garcia-Donis, Amaya) to a specific petitioner who fits the described class. The reasoning is concise but directly addresses the legal issue (entitlement to § 1226(a) bond hearing vs. § 1225(b) mandatory detention) and cites the relevant authorities. It does not skip significant arguments or authorities given the context of applying established class relief.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO ADRIAN RUIZ ZAZUETA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00149-BTM-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 15 TODD M. LYONS, Director, [ECF NO. 1] Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 16 Department of Homeland Security; 17 JOHN RATHMAN, Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Center; PAM 18 BONDI, Attorney General, Department 19 of Justice; and KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of Homeland 20 Security, 21 Respondents. 22 23 24 Pending before the Court is Julio Adrian Ruiz Zazueta’s petition for a writ of habeas 25 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Respondents agree that Ruiz Zazueta appears to 26 be a member of the class granted relief in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 2025 WL 27 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Maldonado Bautista v. 28 Noem, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (ECF No. 4, at 2.) Based on that, 1 acknowledge that Ruiz Zazueta “is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled 2 an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 3 || § 1226(a).” Ud.) The Court agrees and holds that Ruiz Zazueta is entitled to a bond hearing 4 |/under Section 1226(a). The Court also holds that Ruiz Zazueta is independently entitled 5 the writ of habeas corpus for the same reasons discussed in the Court’s recent decisions: 6 Petitioner is a long-term resident of the United States. He was apprehended in 7 the interior of the United States, not near the border or a port of entry. He is not an applicant for admission. He may not be denied a bond hearing based 8 on Respondents’ contention that his case falls within Section 1225. 9 || Garcia-Donis, 2025 WL 3467385, at *1 (quoting Amaya, 2025 WL 3182998, at *2). (See 10 || ECF No. 1, at 3.) 11 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the first claim and the writ 12 |}is ISSUED. The Respondents are enjoined from detaining Ruiz Zazueta under 8 U.S.C. 13 ||§ 1225. The Respondents must also provide him with an individualized bond hearing 14 || before a neutral immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of 15 || the entry of this order. The Respondents shall not deny his bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 16 1225(b) requires mandatory detention. In the absence of a bond hearing as ordered, the 17 || Respondents shall release Ruiz Zazueta from custody. 18 The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. The hearing on 19 || January 30, 2026, is VACATED. The parties shall file a statement as to the satisfaction 20 || of the writ by February 6, 2025, at 4 p.m. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 21 The Petitioner may move for an award of fees within thirty (30) days of the entry of 22 ||this Order. The Respondents shall respond within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the 23 motion and the Petitioner may reply within seven (7) days of the filing of the opposition. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 22, 2026 = 26 Honore Barry Ted Helena 27 United States District Judge 28 2 □ □□