Juan Carlos Estrada-Almager v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen who had been ordered deported over 20 years ago but could not be removed due to the foreign government's refusal to accept him. The court granted the petition, ordering the immediate release of the petitioner subject to his preexisting order of supervision, and denied the parties' joint motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Considering the parties’ agreement and the briefing in this matter, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record because the government conceded that the petitioner is entitled to release under the standard established in Zadvydas v. Davis, given the lack of a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. |
Ordering Immediate Release of Petitioner“Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to the conditions of his preexisting Order of Supervision.” | agree with court The relief is appropriate as it aligns with the government's concession and the requirements of the habeas statute, ensuring the petitioner is not detained without a prospect of removal. |
Denying Joint Motion for Extension of Time as Moot“Because the requested relief is granted, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for extension of time” | agree with court The motion is moot because the underlying issue of the timing of the return was resolved by the court's decision to grant the writ based on the parties' agreement. |
Denying Joint Motion to Expedite Ruling as Moot“the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion to expedite ruling.” | agree with court The motion is moot because the court issued its ruling on the same day the motion was filed, effectively granting the expedited treatment requested. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound because it relies on the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Zadvydas) and the government's explicit concession that the petitioner meets the criteria for release. The court correctly identified that the parties' agreement resolved the factual dispute, making the motions for extension and expedited ruling moot.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS ESTRADA- Case No.: 26-cv-1556-JES-BJW ALMAGER, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) GRANTING PETITION FOR 14 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the 15 Department of Homeland Security; (2) DENYING AS MOOT JOINT 16 PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, 17 TIME; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
18 JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office (3) DENYING AS MOOT JOINT Director, San Diego Field Office; and 19 MOTION TO EXPEDITE RULING CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden at 20 Otay Mesa Detention Center, 21 Respondents. [ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5] 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Juan Carlos Estrada-Almager’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 24 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on March 12, 25 2026. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Respondents filed 26 a return on March 18, 2026. ECF No. 5 (“Return”). The parties also filed a joint motion for 27 28 1 ||}extension of time regarding the return prior to its filing, and a joint motion to expedite 2 ruling by this Court. ECF Nos. 4, 6. 3 Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba who has lived in the United States for over 30 years. 4 ||ECF No. 1 at 2. He was ordered deported over 20 years ago, and the government has not 5 || been able to effectuate his removal since. /d. He was released on an order of supervision 6 2003. /d. Petitioner was re-detained by ICE on February 26, 2026, and has since been 7 || told that Cuba will not accept his deportation. /d. Petitioner challenges his detention under 8 || Zadvydas v. Davis and requests his immediate release. /d. at 11; 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 9 Respondents agree with Petitioner that he is “entitled to be released from custody” 10 under Zadvydas because “there is no evidence to suggest there is a significant likelihood 11 Petitioner will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Return at 1-2. The 12 parties moved for an expedited ruling on the basis of their agreement that Petitioner is 13 entitled to be released. ECF No. 6. 14 Considering the parties’ agreement and the briefing in this matter, the Court 15 || GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately 16 |/release Petitioner from custody, subject to the conditions of his preexisting Order of 17 || Supervision. The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report no later than 5:00 18 on March 20, 2026, confirming that the Petitioner has been released. Because the 19 || requested relief is granted, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for extension of time 20 the motion to expedite ruling. ECF Nos. 4, 6. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to 21 || CLOSE this case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March 19, 2026 24 Sir, 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28