Kevin Antonio Trejo Blanco v. Christopher LaROSE, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging immigration detention and found the claim sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. The court ordered the government to file a brief by February 2, 2026, stating whether it concedes the petitioner's right to a bond hearing or, if not, to answer the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring the government to file a response or concession by February 2, 2026“So, by Monday, February 2, 2026, the government is ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees he is part of that class and (2) intends to concede his right to a bond hearing under that authority. If respondents do not concede, they must answer the petition by February 2, 2026.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which permits dismissal only if the petition is plainly not entitled to relief. Given the overwhelming number of recent district court decisions cited (350 out of 362) finding in favor of petitioners on similar statutory grounds, the court's determination that the petition has 'sufficient potential merit' is well-supported by the recited record. The order to respond is a standard procedural step when a petition survives the initial screening. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for summary dismissal and applies it to the facts. It cites a substantial body of recent, persuasive district court authority (including a class action judgment) to support the finding that the petition has potential merit. The reasoning is direct and answers the procedural question of whether the petition should be dismissed or allowed to proceed. There are no significant gaps in the analysis for this stage of the litigation.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Kevin Antonio TREJO BLANCO, Case No.: 25-cv-3778-AGS-AHG 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 5 v. 6 Christopher LaROSE, et al., Respondents. 7 8 9 Petitioner Kevin Trejo Blanco 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 “On November 13, 2013,” Trejo Blanco, a citizen of “El Salvador,” entered the 20 United States “without inspection.” (ECF 4, at 3, 5.) In “October 2025,” “DHS detained 21 petitioner and started a removal proceeding.” (Id. at 5.) When he requested a bond hearing, 22 “the immigration judge denied the bond motion, concluding that the court does not have 23 jurisdiction to consider a bond according to the BIA [Board of Immigration Appeals] case 24 of Yajure-Hurtado.” (Id.) Thereafter, respondents “initiated removal proceedings against 25 Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a and filed his Notice to Appear.” (Id.) Trejo Blanco argues 26 that this violates the “Immigration and Nationality Act” and the “Due Process Clause.” 27 (Id.) 28 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally 1 ||identical cases across the country have succeeded, including a class action dealing with 2 || this very question. See Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 3 || WL 3678485, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (class action final judgment), Barco Mercado 4 ||v. Francis, __ F. Supp. 3d. __, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 5 ||(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, 6 || the petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were 7 “decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. 8 || Noem, No. 5:25-cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) 9 || (“[P]etitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), 10 |/not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv- 11 }}01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez 12 ||v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 13 |}2025) (“[T]he government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of 14 || statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.’’). 15 Recently, respondents have routinely conceded these claims when brought by 16 || petitioners who are members of the Maldonado Bautista class, as plaintiff asserts. (See 17 || ECF 1, at 2.) So, by Monday, February 2, 2026, the government is ordered to file a brief 18 ||stating whether it: (1) agrees he is part of that class and (2) intends to concede his right to 19 ||a bond hearing under that authority. If respondents do not concede, they must answer the 20 || petition by February 2, 2026. 21 ||Dated: January 28, 2026 23 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28