Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Ibrahim Olawale BANKOLE, Case No.: 26-cv-1229-AGS-BLM 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 5 v. 6 Pam BONDI, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 10 Petitioner Ibrahim Bankole seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to 11 free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is 12 sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing Section 2254 13 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it 14 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 15 to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 16 to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary 17 dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 18 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is 19 not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 20 In November 2022, Bankole, a “citizen and national of Nigeria,” “arrived in the 21 United States” and “was detained by U.S. Border Patrol.” (ECF 1, at 6–7.) After “forty- 22 eight days in immigration custody,” Bankole was released “on parole after” his custodians 23 concluded “that he did not pose a danger to the community and did not present a flight 24 risk.” (Id. at 7.) “After his release,” Bankole “consistently complied with all immigration 25 court requirements” and was permitted “to remain at liberty for nearly three years without 26 placing him in immigration detention” while he moved through the immigration court 27 system. (Id. at 7–8.) On January 22, 2026, Bankole appeared for “a check-in and 28 information update” and was taken into custody. (Id. at 8.) Bankole claims his liberty was 1 “revoked without advance notice, without an opportunity to be heard, and without any 2 || individualized determination made before a neutral decisionmaker.” (/d. at 9.) This loss of 3 || liberty, he claims, “violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (/d. at 14.) 4 This challenge merits an answer. District courts have ordered petitioners released on 5 || similar grounds. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, _ F. Supp.3d.___, No. 25-cv-06487- 6 || PCP, 2025 WL 2935630, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025); (“[Petitioners] have demonstrated 7 likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 8 || Amendment entitles them to a hearing before ICE may re-detain them.”); Salazar v. Casey, 9 || No. 25-cv-2784 JLS (VET), 2025 WL 3063629, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (granting 10 ||habeas relief because respondents failed to provide “proper notice, reasoning, and a 11 || pre-deprivation hearing,” and thus “detained Petitioner . . . in violation of the Due Process 12 || Clause”); Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 24-cv-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. 13 || Oct. 6, 2025) (“When Respondents placed [petitioner] under arrest without notice and an 14 || opportunity to be heard,” and “then imprisoned him... without a pre-deprivation bond 15 || hearing, they violated his established right to procedural due process.”). 16 By March 3, 2026, the government must file its return. Any traverse is due March 4, 17 || 2026, and the Court will hold a hearing on March 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 18 Dated: February 27, 2026 20 Hon. rew G. Schopler 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28