Gerardo GARCIA RAMOS v. Kristi NOEM, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Gerardo Garcia Ramos filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court denied summary dismissal, finding the claim cognizable, and ordered the government to file a brief by March 3, 2026, stating whether it agrees the petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and intends to concede his right to a bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the habeas petition“This challenge merits a response.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the claim be 'clearly not cognizable' or 'frivolous or incredible.' Given the split in the Courts of Appeals (Seventh Circuit vs. Fifth Circuit) and the overwhelming trend in district court decisions favoring the petitioner, the claim has 'potential merit' and does not meet the high bar for summary dismissal. The court's reliance on Neiss v. Bludworth and the cited district court decisions supports this conclusion. |
Order requiring the government to file a brief regarding the applicable statute and intent to concede“So, by Tuesday, March 3, 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.” | agree with court The court ordered the government to respond to the specific legal question of whether the petitioner falls under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2). This is a procedural step to advance the case, likely anticipating that the government may concede the point given the recent C.D. Cal. decision in Bautista v. Santacruz and the routine concessions noted in the order. The order is a reasonable exercise of the court's case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for summary dismissal and applies it to the facts. It acknowledges the circuit split and the strong district court trend favoring the petitioner, which supports the conclusion that the claim is cognizable. The order to require the government to respond to the specific statutory question is a logical next step. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Gerardo GARCIA RAMOS, Case No.: 26-cv-1252-AGS-DEB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 5 v. 6 Kristi NOEM, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 10 Petitioner Gerardo Garcia Ramos seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a 12 claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing 13 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary 14 dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 15 is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 16 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules 17 permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 18 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any 19 potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 20 In “2000,” Garcia Ramos, a “citizen of Mexico,” “entered the United States without 21 inspection.” (ECF 1, at 5.) More than “25 years” later, in “March 2025,” he “was detained” 22 by respondents. (Id. at 2, 5.) He is still in custody and challenges the government’s decision 23 to subject him to mandatory detention under “[8 U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2),” which applies to 24 “arriving aliens.” (See id. at 7–8.) He asserts that his case is instead governed by “8 U.S.C. 25 § 1226(a)”—which authorizes release on bond or conditional parole. (Id. at 8.) 26 This challenge merits a response. The two Courts of Appeals to address this question 27 disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare Castañon-Nava v. United States Dep’t 28 of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this | preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs who are “unlawfully already in the 2 || United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”’), with 3 || Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, — F.4th _, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 4 Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A), petitioners who entered the 5 || United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained” without a bond hearing). But 6 petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in functionally identical cases. 7 || See, e.g., Barco Mercado y. Francis, ___F. Supp. 3d. __, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 8 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” 9 || opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final 10 basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty 11 || different courts’). And a district court recently “vacate[d]” the Board of Immigration 12 || Appeals decision that respondents have regularly relied on to mandatorily detain those in 13 ||petitioner’s position, holding that the BIA decision was “contrary to law” under the 14 || Administrative Procedure Act. Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 15 || F. Supp. 3d__, 2026 WL 468284, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026). 16 In addition, respondents have routinely conceded these claims when brought by 17 || those—like petitioner—who seem to be members of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 18 ||that same case. See Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 19 ||3713987, at *32 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). So, by Tuesday, March 3, 2026, the 20 || government is ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees petitioner is detained 21 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and (2) intends to concede petitioner’s right to a bond hearing under 22 || that authority. 23 || Dated: February 27, 2026 25 Hon. rew G. Schopler %6 United States District Judge 27 28