Silverio Sanchez-Ortiz v. Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum filed by a petitioner alleging a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 due to a delay in initial appearance. The court denied the petition without prejudice, noting that the petitioner was scheduled for arraignment the same day and could renew the petition if the arraignment did not occur.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition and Application. (ECF Nos. 1-2.)” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the petition without prejudice is consistent with the procedural posture. The petitioner was scheduled for arraignment on the same day the order was issued (March 26, 2026). Since the relief sought (immediate presentation) was effectively being granted through the scheduled arraignment, the petition was moot or unnecessary at that moment. Denying without prejudice allows the petitioner to seek relief if the scheduled arraignment does not happen, which is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is brief and procedural. It cites a Ninth Circuit case to establish a baseline for what constitutes an unreasonable delay, but the primary reason for denial appears to be the imminent arraignment. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order denying a petition that is effectively mooted by the scheduled court date.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 SILVERIO SANCHEZ-ORTIZ, Case No. 26-cv-01906-BAS 14 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 15 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court are a Petition and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 Ad Prosequendum filed on March 25, 2026. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) The Petition alleges 22 Petitioner was arrested on March 24, 2026, and has not been presented for an initial 23 appearance in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5. Petitioner seeks a writ 24 of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directing Respondents to immediately present 25 Petitioner to a magistrate judge for arraignment. 26 Upon review, the Petition and Application do not demonstrate that Petitioner is 27 entitled to relief. Cf. United States v. Pimental, 755 F.3d 1095, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2014) 28 (finding a four-day delay in presentment over a holiday weekend was unreasonable and 1 |/unnecessary). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition 2 ||and Application. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner is scheduled for arraignment on March 26, 3 2026 at 2:00 p.m. In the event that Petitioner is not arraigned on March 26, 2026, Petitioner 4 || may renew the Petition and Application. Further, the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order 5 |}on the U.S. Attorney’s Office and close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ~ 8 || DATED: March 26, 2026 (yatta Bihar ank Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.
Cites, in this corpus
- United States v. Luis Torres Pimental 12-50038 · 2014-06-24