Cipriano Alarcon-Galvez v. Christopher Larose; Daniel A. Brightman; Todd M. Lyons; Kristi Noem; Pamela Bondi; and Executive Office for Immigration Review
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1225(b)(2); and 5 (2) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five days 6 of prov
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the petitioner's detention and the statutory basis for that detention. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the government to provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and enjoining the petitioner's removal from the district pending the outcome.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the petition as follows:” | agree with court The court relies on a specific district court judgment (Maldonado Bautista) to determine the correct statutory basis for detention. While the order does not explicitly state the standard of review for the habeas petition, the decision to grant relief based on the government's acknowledgment of the correct statutory classification is procedurally consistent with the record presented. |
Order for bond determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)“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 order mandates a specific statutory hearing based on the finding that the petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2). This follows from the cited precedent in Maldonado Bautista. |
Injunction against removal from the United States or the District“Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court cites A.A.R.P. v. Trump and other district court orders to support its inherent power to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm by enjoining removal while the petition is pending. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in that it addresses the immediate statutory classification of the detention and uses standard equitable powers to preserve jurisdiction. However, it is a preliminary order that holds the merits in abeyance, and it relies heavily on a single district court case (Maldonado Bautista) for the substantive legal determination without citing the underlying Supreme Court or Circuit precedent that likely supports that classification.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIPRIANO ALARCON-GALVEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-931-JES-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR BOND HEARING 13 v. 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN; TODD M. LYONS; 15 KRISTI NOEM; PAMELA BONDI; and 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, 17 Respondents. 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Cipriano Alarcon-Galvez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Before the Court issued an Order to 21 Show Cause, Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 1. In the return, Respondents 22 acknowledged that Petitioner must be considered detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), 23 pursuant to the final judgment entered in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV- 24 01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the petition as follows: 26 // 27 28 1 (1) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond 2 determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this Order. 3 At the hearing, Respondents may not deny Petitioner bond on the basis that 4 he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and 5 (2) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five days 6 of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing, including 7 apprising the Court of the results of the hearing with a copy of the immigration 8 judge’s bond order. 9 (3) To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending final resolution of this matter, 10 Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless 11 and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805- 12 BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts 13 retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it has 14 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending 15 resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 16 ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a 17 Temporary restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and 18 ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and 19 all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 20 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order 21 of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 22 that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent 23 irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the 24 matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 25 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing 26 Petitioner without approval from the court). 27 // 28 // 1 || Pending the status report, the Court will hold in abeyance the merits of the remainder of 2 || the relief Petitioner requests in his petition. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: February 18, 2026 6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28