Pedro Ledezma-Amezquita v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court 3 directing a bond hearing be hel
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen who is a member of a certified class entitled to bond hearings. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days, and denied the petition in part to the extent it requested immediate release from custody.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant in part of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days.” | agree with court The order relies on the Respondents' acknowledgment that the Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to the class certification in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. Because the Respondents conceded the legal entitlement to a hearing, the court's order to provide that hearing follows directly from the record and the cited class action judgment. |
Denial in part of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (immediate release)“The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody.” | agree with court The court denies immediate release because the legal remedy established by the cited class action (Maldonado Bautista) is an individualized bond hearing, not automatic release. Detention continues pending the outcome of that hearing. This is a standard procedural application of the remedy granted in the underlying class action. |
Order for EAJA Fee Application“Petitioner’s attorney is directed to submit an attorney fee application and corresponding billing records within thirty (30) of this Order, and Respondents are instructed to file any opposition within fourteen (14) days of Petitioner’s attorney fee application.” | agree with court The court cites 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) and sets a procedural schedule for the fee application, consistent with the statute's requirement that applications be filed within thirty days of final judgment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on a specific, cited class action judgment (Maldonado Bautista) and the Respondents' own acknowledgment of the Petitioner's status within that class. The court correctly distinguishes between the right to a bond hearing and the right to immediate release, ordering the former and denying the latter. The EAJA section correctly cites the relevant statute and sets appropriate deadlines.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO LEDEZMA-AMEZQUITA, Case No.: 26-CV-979 JLS (BJW)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., 15 (ECF No. 1) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Pedro Ledezma-Amezquita’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 20 is Respondents’ Return to Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 4). Petitioner did not file a traverse. 21 See generally Docket. Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, alleges that he has been detained by 22 the United States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs 23 Enforcement (“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since February 12, 2026. 24 Pet. ¶ 16. Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado 25 Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 26 27 28 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). Ret. at 2. Because of this, Respondents “acknowledge that 2 Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court 3 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Id. Therefore, the 4 Petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. 5 I. Attorney’s Fees 6 Petitioner’s counsel still requests costs and attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to 7 the Equal Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Pet. at 9. The EAJA provides in part: 8 A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an 9 application for fees and other expenses which shows that the 10 party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this subsection, and the amount sought, including an 11 itemized statement from any attorney . . . representing or 12 appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were 13 computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the 14 United States was not substantially justified. Whether or not the position of the United States was substantially justified shall be 15 determined on the basis of the record . . . which is made in the 16 civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought. 17 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). 18 The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under 19 the EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment. 20 CONCLUSION 21 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ 22 of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an 23 individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days. 24 Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) 25 26 1 On December 18, 2025, the Bautista Court entered final judgment finding that the July 8, 2025, DHS 27 Notice redefining who is considered an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) is 28 unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. Maldonado Bautista, No. 25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM, 1 ||requires mandatory detention. The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent 2 || that Petitioner requests to be released from custody. The Parties SHALL provide a status 3 || update as to the result of the hearing by March 20, 2026. 4 The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under 5 EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment. Petitioner’s attorney is directed 6 ||to submit an attorney fee application and corresponding billing records within thirty (30) 7 of this Order, and Respondents are instructed to file any opposition within fourteen 8 || (14) days of Petitioner’s attorney fee application. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: March 4, 2026 . tt f Le 11 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28