Cozme Villegas Solano v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Nonetheless, this Court finds the rationale of 1 Maldonado Bautista is still applicable to P
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an individual detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) who sought a bond hearing. The court granted the petition and ordered a bond hearing to be held within 7 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering a bond hearing within 7 days“the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 7 days.” | agree with court The court relies on its own prior unpublished opinions (Gregorio, Zayas, Trujillo) and the rationale of Maldonado Bautista to determine that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but rather falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which provides for a bond hearing. The government acknowledged in its response that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). The decision follows from the legal framework established in the cited district court cases and the statutory distinction between § 1225 and § 1226 detention. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on consistent district court precedent within the same district. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the bond hearing (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) and acknowledges the Ninth Circuit's limitation of the class action while applying the underlying legal rationale. The government's concession in the response supports the outcome. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a habeas petition where the legal issue is well-settled within the district.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 COZME VILLEGAS SOLANO, Case No. 26-cv-01278-BAS-DDL 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 14 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 15 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner Cozme Villegas Solano filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ostensibly to enforce his rights as a member of the 21 Maldonado Bautista class, and he seeks either immediate release or a bond hearing within 22 7 days. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded to the Petition, acknowledging that 23 “Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and [is] entitled to an order from this Court 24 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 4.) Since the 25 Petition and Return were filed, the Ninth Circuit limited application of the class in 26 Maldonado Bautista to the Central District of California and stayed its application to all 27 other potential class members. See Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 28 No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Nonetheless, this Court finds the rationale of 1 Maldonado Bautista is still applicable to Petitioner, and thus, the Court GRANTS the 2 Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 7 days. 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 5 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 6 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 7 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 8 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 9 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 10 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 11 has standing to pursue this Petition. 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 Petitioner entered the United States without inspection twenty years ago and was not 14 apprehended upon his arrival. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6c.) The Department of Homeland Security 15 (“DHS”) arrested him on October 27, 2025, in the interior of the United States. (Id. ¶ 2.) 16 Petitioner has been unable to get a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on the ground 17 that his detention was mandatory pursuant to Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 18 216 (BIA 2025). (Id.) 19 The Central District of California certified a class and essentially overruled Yajure 20 Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. 21 Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). This Court has previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with 22 the Central District in Maldonado Bautista that an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not 23 subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25- 24 cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 25 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). Hence, for all of the 27 reasons stated in these previous opinions, and regardless of whether Petitioner is or is not 28 a member of the Maldonado Bautista class, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Cozme 4 Villegas Solano (A# 221-416-326) within 7 days of the date of this Order. The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). 5 If no bond hearing is held within 7 days, Petitioner is ordered released 6 forthwith. 7 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: March 10, 2026 11 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge D United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28