Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA PINTO PINEDA, Case No.: 26-cv-01801-GPC-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL [ECF No. 1] DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF 18 No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and ORDERS that 19 Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1226(a) within seven (7) days. The Court vacates the hearing scheduled for April 3, 2026. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without 23 inspection in 2005. ECF No. 1-2. Respondents detained Petitioner in January 2026. ECF 24 No. 1, at 4. Since that time, Petitioner has remained in custody at the Imperial Regional 25 Detention Facility in Calexico, California. Id. She has not been provided with a bond 26 hearing. Id. 27 28 1 Petitioner alleges that she is wrongfully being subject to mandatory detention under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) when she is eligible for a bond haring under § 1226(a). Id. She seeks 3 an order from this Court requiring that Respondents provide a prompt custody 4 redetermination bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. Id. 5 Respondents do not oppose an Order granting a bond hearing for Petitioner. ECF 6 No. 4. Thus, Respondents have “effectively concede[ed]” that Petitioner is detained under 7 § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2) and has been unlawfully denied a bond hearing. See 8 Vardanyan v. Noem, No. 5:26-CV-00423-MRA-RAO, 2026 WL 383341, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 9 Feb. 11, 2026).1 10 Given Petitioner’s allegations, a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy in this case. 11 Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and a bond hearing is 12 therefore sufficient to correct the unopposed violations outlined in the Petition. See 8 13 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding 14 a bond hearing, rather than release, to be the appropriate remedy where Petitioner was 15 wrongfully subjected to mandatory detention without a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 16 1225(b)(2) rather than provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, 17 --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2998361, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (same). If 18 Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioner may seek further relief from the 19 Court at that time. 20 ORDER 21 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Court acknowledges that Petitioner’s time to file a traverse has not yet passed. However, upon review of the Petition and Response, the Court finds that additional 28 1 e Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order.” At the hearing, 3 Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the 4 evidence that he is not a danger to the community or flight risk; 5 e Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice of Compliance within seven 6 (7) days of the hearing confirming that Petitioner was provided with a bond 7 hearing and stating whether Petitioner was released on bond; 8 e Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending her 9 bond hearing; 10 e Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 1] § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention; 12 e The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this 13 case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || Dated: March 27, 2026 72 Sf Hon. athe Cae 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || 27 ||* Respondents request 14 days to provide such a hearing. ECF No. 4, at 2 n.1. However, 28 Petitioner is presently wrongfully detained without a bond hearing. The seriousness and urgency of this violation demands prompt resolution.