Cuyo Bayron Ruben Toaquiza v. Christopher LaROSE
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a self-represented petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court ordered the government to file a brief by March 2, 2026, stating whether it concedes the petitioner's right to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, or to answer the petition by March 5, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring the government to file a brief stating whether it concedes the petitioner's right to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, or to answer the petition.“So, by Monday, March 2, 2026, the government is ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and (2) intends to concede petitioner’s right to a bond hearing under that authority. If respondents do not concede, they must answer the petition by March 5, 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. The court found the petition had potential merit based on the split in authority and the high rate of success in similar cases, thus denying summary dismissal and requiring a response. This follows the procedural requirements for habeas petitions. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases, citing the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Neiss v. Bludworth. It acknowledges the split in authority between the Seventh and Fifth Circuits and notes the high rate of success in similar district court cases. The court's decision to require a response rather than summarily dismiss is consistent with the procedural rules and the merits of the petition as recited.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Cuyo Bayron Ruben TOAQUIZA, Case No.: 26-cv-1136-AGS-VET 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 5 v. 6 Christopher LaROSE, 7 Respondents. 8 9 10 Self-represented petitioner Cuyo Toaquiza seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 11 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make 12 out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules 13 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing 14 summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 15 the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules 16 Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the 17 relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” 18 Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a 19 petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary 20 dismissal[.]” Id. 21 On “April 13, 2023,” Tuaquiza, a noncitizen from “Ecuador,” “entered the U.S.” 22 (ECF 1-2, at 1.) He was “released” from ICE detention, moved to “New York,” filed an 23 application for “asylum,” and attended multiple “court hearing[s].” (Id.) He also obtained 24 a “work permit, health insurance[,]” and a Social Security Number. (Id.) Years later, on 25 November 8, 2025, he was “arrested,” and bounced around detention facilities in 26 “New Jersey,” “Louisiana,” “Texas,” and now California’s “Otay Mesa Detention Center,” 27 where he remains. (Id.) He asserts that he is being detained unlawfully, as his “detention is 28 not mandatory” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (ECF 1, at 6.) l This challenge merits a response. The two Courts of Appeals to address this question 2 || disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare Castanon-Nava v. United States Dep’t 3 ||of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this 4 ||preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs who are “unlawfully already in the 5 || United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”’), with 6 || Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, _ F.4th —_, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 7 || (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A), petitioners who entered the 8 || United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained” without a bond hearing). But 9 ||most petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in functionally identical cases. 10 e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, __ F. Supp. 3d. ___, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 11 }}2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” 12 || opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final 13 basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty 14 || different courts’’). 15 In addition, respondents have routinely conceded these claims when brought by 16 those—like petitioner—who seem to be members of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 17 || Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, __ F.Supp.3d __, 2025 WL 18 ||3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). So, by Monday, March 2, 2026, the government is 19 || ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. 20 || § 1226 and (2) intends to concede petitioner’s right to a bond hearing under that authority. 21 || If respondents do not concede, they must answer the petition by March 5, 2026. 22 Dated: February 26, 2026 24 Hon. rew G. Schopler 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28