Freddy Leonel Severiche Suarez v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center; Field Office Director, ICE San Diego Field Office: Todd M. Lyons
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — He works as a delivery driver, and was redetained by ICE in 4 Escondido, California on May 3, 2026 while he was picking up a discovery
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a detained non-citizen who had been previously released. The court granted the writ, ordering the immediate release of the petitioner, and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.” | agree with court The court relied on the principle that a prior grant of release creates a liberty interest protected by procedural due process. Given the respondents' non-opposition and failure to refute the claim of prior release, the finding that the revocation of that interest without notice or procedure violated due process is consistent with the cited district court precedents and general habeas principles. |
Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Moot“In light of this relief, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for temporary restraining order.” | agree with court Because the court granted the underlying habeas petition and ordered immediate release, the request for temporary injunctive relief is no longer necessary. Denying the motion as moot is the standard procedural response when the underlying claim is resolved in the petitioner's favor. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound in the context of a non-opposed habeas petition. The court correctly identified the relevant legal principle (prior release creates a liberty interest) and applied it to the facts (petitioner was previously released and re-detained without notice). The reliance on recent, unpublished district court opinions from the same district is appropriate for this type of routine, non-opposed motion. The court did not need to engage in a full statutory analysis of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) given the respondents' concession and the strength of the due process argument.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDDY LEONEL SEVERICHE Case No.: 3:26-cv-2990-JES-JLB SUAREZ, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) GRANTING PETITION FOR 14 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; and WARDEN OF OTAY MESA 15 DETENTION CENTER; FIELD OFFICE (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 16 DIRECTOR, ICE SAN DIEGO FIELD FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING OFFICE: TODD M. LYONS; 17 ORDER SECRETARY OF HOMELAND 18 SECURITY; and UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 19 Respondents. 20 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Freddy Leonel Severiche Suarez’s (“Petitioner”) 22 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner 23 also filed a concurrent motion for temporary restraining order. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the 24 Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 3), Respondents filed a return to the petition. ECF 25 No. 5. 26 Petitioner is a native of Colombia who came to the United States in order to seek 27 asylum. ECF No. 1 at 4. Petitioner entered the United States around December 12, 2023, 28 and was detained until about February 3, 2024. ECF No. 1-4 ¶¶ 12-13. After that detention, 1 Petitioner asserts that he was released. Id. ¶ 14. Petitioner asserts that he has a social 2 security card with work authorization, as well as a valid Employment Authorization 3 Document. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. He works as a delivery driver, and was redetained by ICE in 4 Escondido, California on May 3, 2026 while he was picking up a discovery order for 5 DoorDash. Id. at 5. 6 In their return, Respondents acknowledge that courts have routinely held that 7 petitioners similarly situated to Petitioner are not mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 8 1225(b). ECF No. 5 at 2. While reserving their rights, they state that they “do[] not oppose 9 the petition and defers to the Court on the appropriate relief.” Id. at 3. 10 In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, the Court will decline to engage in a full 11 analysis of the claims as well. Petitioner states that he was previously released by the 12 government when he first entered in 2024. Respondents do not address or refute this claim. 13 Many courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that a prior grant of release raises a 14 liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner to due process rights under 15 procedural due process. See, e.g., Rivera v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 26-CV-375- 16 JES-AHG, 2026 WL 310193, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026); Besalti v. LaRose, No. 26- 17 CV-270-JES-JLB, 2026 WL 242042, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026); Singh v. LaRose, 18 No. 26-CV-0556-JES-VET, 2026 WL 353355, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026); Ramales 19 v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-501-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 280216, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026); 20 Minhas v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-492-JES-BLM, 2026 WL 280220, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 21 2026). Accordingly, the Court adopts its reasoning and finds that due process requires 22 release of Petitioner here, where the liberty interest was revoked without any notice or 23 procedure. 24 Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are 25 ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of 26 his prior that existed at the time he was re-detained. The Parties are ORDERED to file a 27 Joint Status Report by May 22, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. In light 28 of this relief, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for temporary restraining order. l The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: May 18, 2026 5 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28