Anton Fertikh v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Anton Fertikh’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRAN
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which the petitioner alleged that his eighteen-month detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court granted the petition and ordered the government to provide an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days, placing the burden of proof on the government to show by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Anton Fertikh’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.” | agree with court The government conceded in its Return that the court should order a bond hearing based on prior district court rulings and the length of detention. Granting the petition is consistent with the government's concession and the established legal principle that prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates due process. |
Ordering an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days“The government shall provide Anton Fertikh with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, unless Mr. Fertikh requests a continuance.” | agree with court The order specifies the timeline and the forum for the hearing, which is a standard remedial measure in these types of habeas cases to address the due process violation. |
Placing the burden of proof on the government to establish danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence“At the hearing, the government SHALL BEAR the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Fertikh would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.” | agree with court This standard aligns with the government's concession and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the government's concession and established Ninth Circuit precedent. It correctly identifies the due process violation and orders the appropriate remedy with specific procedural safeguards.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON FERTIKH, Case No.: 26cv2448-LL-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 7] 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Anton Fertikh’s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 7 (“Pet.”)], alleging that his prolonged detention 21 of about eighteen months without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due 22 Process Clause. Pet. at 3. 23 The government filed a Return, in which the government concedes that in 24 considering prior rulings by courts in this district finding that prolonged detention without 25 a bond hearing violates due process, as well as Mr. Fertikh’s length of detention, “this 26 Court should order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing, where the government would 27 bear the burden of proof of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner 28 poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” ECF No. 8 at 1–2. 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1. Anton Fertikh’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 3 2. The government shall provide Anton Fertikh with an individualized bond 4 hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, 5 unless Mr. Fertikh requests a continuance. 6 a. At the hearing, the government SHALL BEAR the burden of 7 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Fertikh would 8 likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released. Concerns 9 about interrupting court schedules is not a ground to deny bond. 10 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 11 release and Mr. Fertikh’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines 12 bond is appropriate. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th 13 Cir. 2017). 14 c. If requested by Mr. Fertikh, the government SHALL assist Mr. Fertikh 15 in obtaining the audio recording of the bond hearing. Martinez v. Clark, 16 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 17 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011)). 18 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Mr. Fertikh’s favor and close this 19 || case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: May 22, 2026 NO 22 QF | 3 Honorable Linda Lopez 54 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28