Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 26cv1545 DMS JLB SOHAN LAL, 12 O R D E R G R A N T I N G P E T I TION 13 Petitioner, v. 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden of the 15 Imperial Regional Detention Center; et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Pet., ECF No. 19 1.) Respondents filed a return, (Return, ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed a reply, (ECF No. 20 5). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Petition. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. (Pet. ¶ 20.) He entered the United States 23 without inspection on October 26, 2023. (Id. ¶ 21.) Shortly after his entry, Petitioner was 24 briefly detained by immigration authorities and then released on his own recognizance 25 subject to conditions of supervision. (Id. ¶¶ 22–23.) He was also served with a Notice to 26 Appear, charging him as being present in the United States without admission or parole. 27 (Id. ¶ 27.) Per the conditions of his release, Petitioner was required to comply with 28 1 Alternatives to Detention monitoring and periodic reporting requirements. (Id. ¶ 24.) 2 Petitioner has fully complied with the conditions of his release and has no criminal history. 3 (Id. ¶¶ 25–26.) He also obtained valid employment authorization because of his timely- 4 filed asylum application. (Id. ¶ 29.) On March 3, 2026, Petitioner stopped at a gas station 5 for coffee while working as a commercial truck driver. (Id. ¶ 31.) Petitioner was 6 approached by an officer and asked to provide identification. (Id. ¶ 32.) Petitioner 7 cooperated and informed the officer that he possessed valid employment authorization, was 8 attending all immigration court proceedings, and had complied with his conditions of 9 release. (See id. ¶¶ 33–34.) Yet, the officer detained Petitioner “without notice, without 10 any alleged violation, and without any individualized custody determination.” (Id. ¶¶ 35, 11 37.) The officer did not allege any criminal conduct or violation of supervision conditions. 12 (Id. ¶ 36.) Petitioner remains detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Center under 8 13 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Id. ¶¶ 15, 38.) 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within their 16 respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A petitioner prevails in his petition for writ 17 of habeas corpus if he shows that his custody violates the Constitution or laws of the United 18 States. Id. § 2241(c)(3). The writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual 19 detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 When determining whether Petitioner’s procedural due process rights have been 22 violated, the Court must consider: 23 three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest 24 through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional 25 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens 26 that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 27 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). 28 1 First, Petitioner “invokes the most significant liberty interest there is—the interest 2 in being free from imprisonment.” Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395, 416 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (citation modified) (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner was on supervised 4 release when he was re-detained. He undeniably had a liberty interest. See Noori v. 5 LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding the petitioner “has a private 6 interest in remaining free, which developed over the year he resided in the United States”). 7 Therefore, this factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor. 8 Next, there is a high risk of erroneous deprivation of this liberty interest when 9 noncitizens are re-detained without a hearing. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, 806 F. 10 Supp. 3d 1069, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing cases). Here, Petitioner was fully compliant 11 with the conditions of his supervised release and lawfully employed. He was re-detained— 12 despite his cooperation and explanation to the officer—while simply grabbing a cup of 13 coffee during the course of his job. He was re-detained without notice, without an 14 individualized custody determination, without any process. He remains detained, still 15 having received no process. Accordingly, the second factor—the risk of an erroneous 16 deprivation of such interest through the procedures used—unquestionably weighs in favor 17 of Petitioner. 18 On the third factor, “[t]he government may have a ‘strong interest’ in detaining 19 noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings as needed to protect the public 20 from dangerous criminal aliens, or to prevent flight and thereby increase the chance that 21 the aliens will be successfully removed.” Pablo Sequen, 806 F. Supp. 3d at 1090 (citation 22 modified) (quoting Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1208 (9th Cir. 2022)). 23 However, when the Government previously decided to release a noncitizen and there is no 24 evidence of any changed circumstance that might have caused the Government to 25 reconsider that decision, its interest in re-detention is low. Doe v. Chestnut, No. 25-cv- 26 01372, 2025 WL 3295154, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (citations omitted). Here, no 27 such evidence exists. Petitioner was compliant, law abiding, and employed. “While the 28 government has an interest in enforcing immigration laws . . . it must pursue that interest 1 || ‘in a manner consistent with the Constitution.”” Munoz Materano, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 420 2 ||(citation omitted). This factor also weighs in Petitioner’s favor. Thus, applying the 3 || Mathews balancing test, the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention violates his due process 4 || rights. 5 Respondents do not contest the facts or argue the officer’s actions were 6 constitutional. Rather, they state that they do not oppose Petitioner receiving “a bond 7 || hearing .. . subject to supervision during his removal proceedings.” (Return.) However, 8 ||as Petitioner correctly states: a bond hearing will not cure this constitutional violation. 9 || (Reply 2-3.) Petitioner was on supervised release and fully compliant with the conditions 10 |/of his release when he was unlawfully re-detained. There exists no evidence of changed 11 circumstances that justify his re-detention. Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. The 12 ||Court ORDERS Petitioner’s immediate release. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Petition. Respondents shall release 15 || Petitioner within 24 hours, and shall not re-detain Petitioner without first providing a pre- 16 || deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which Respondents must prove that 17 ||changed circumstances related to flight risk or danger warrant Petitioner’s re-detention. 18 ||Respondents are further ORDERED to file a Status Report within seven (7) days of the 19 || entry of this Order, confirming Petitioner has been released. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: April 24, 2026 2» J, f 22 Zn Wn: DA Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28