Rubi Bernardo Herrera v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Rubi Bernardo Herrera filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a bond hearing after DHS refused to provide one, relying on a BIA decision that the Central District of California had effectively overruled in a class action. The Court granted the petition, ordering a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days, and ordered the petitioner's release if the hearing was not held in that timeframe.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering a bond hearing within seven days.“For all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS the Petition.” | agree with court The court's decision is supported by the government's concession that the petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and does not oppose a bond hearing. The court also relies on its own prior precedents (Gregorio, Zayas, Trujillo) which align with the class certification in Maldonado Bautista, establishing that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225. The seven-day deadline is a reasonable exercise of the court's equitable powers to ensure compliance, especially given the government's delay despite prior notice. |
Ordering the petitioner's release if a bond hearing is not held within seven days.“If no bond hearing is held within seven days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith.” | agree with court This is a standard enforcement mechanism in habeas corpus proceedings to ensure the writ is not rendered a nullity. Given the government's concession and the court's prior rulings, the threat of immediate release is a proportionate and legally sound remedy to compel compliance with the bond hearing order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for habeas corpus, relies on binding Supreme Court precedent, and applies the district court's own consistent line of cases (Gregorio, Zayas, Trujillo) which align with the class certification in Maldonado Bautista. The government's concession that the petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and its lack of opposition to a bond hearing make the grant of the petition straightforward. The seven-day deadline and release order are appropriate equitable remedies to ensure compliance.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RUBI BERNARDO HERRERA, Case No. 26-cv-01796-BAS-AHG 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 14 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 15 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner Rubi Bernardo Herrera filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241, requesting a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded to the 21 Petition, acknowledging that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Maldonado Bautista 22 class, even though application of that order has been stayed beyond the Central District of 23 California. (ECF No. 4.) Thus, the Government “do[es] not oppose an order from the 24 Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (Id.) However, 25 the Government requests fourteen days to hold the bond hearing because of “heavy 26 caseloads and staffing levels.” (Id.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 27 Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within seven days. 28 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 4 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 5 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 6 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 7 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 8 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since she is seeking release from custody, 9 she has standing to pursue this Petition. 10 II. ANALYSIS 11 Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on November 10, 2023. 12 (ECF No. 1-2.) She was not apprehended upon arrival. (Id.) She is now married to a 13 United States citizen serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. (ECF No. 1.) Immigration and 14 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested her in February 2026. (Id.) Since her arrest, the 15 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has refused to grant her request for a bond 16 hearing, relying on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Id.) 17 The Central District of California certified a class of which Petitioner was initially a 18 member. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. 19 Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). The case essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Although the Ninth 20 Circuit has stayed application of the class to any members outside the Central District of 21 California, Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. 22 Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the Court 23 in Maldonado Bautista that an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to 24 mandatory detention under Section 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322- 25 BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv- 26 00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26- 27 cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). The Government 28 concedes that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a), and it “do[es] not oppose an order 1 || from the Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF 2 || No. 4.) 3 For all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS the 4 || Petition. Although the Government requests that it be given fourteen days to hold a bond 5 || hearing, it has been aware of the opinion in Maldonado Bautista since December 2025, yet 6 still requires a habeas petition to enforce the order out of the Central District of 7 California. In addition, this Petition was filed on March 20, 2026, so specifically as to this 8 || Petitioner, the Government has been aware of the need to provide her a bond hearing since 9 ||then. Hence, the Government has had plenty of time despite its “heavy caseloads and 10 || staffing levels” to schedule a bond hearing. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 13 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Rubi 14 Bernardo Herrera (A#241-715-317) within seven days of the date of this Order. The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 15 § 1225(b)(2). If no bond hearing is held within seven days, Petitioner is 16 ordered released forthwith. 17 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || DATED: April 2, 2026 ii ly A (Dipharb 21 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 9 United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28 48