Jose Nunez Acevedo v. Todd M. Lyons, ET AL.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
Petitioner Jose Nunez Acevedo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release or a bond hearing while in immigration detention. The court granted the petition, ordering respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing within 14 days and prohibiting the denial of bond based on mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted“For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court relied on the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz and subsequent district court decisions to conclude that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and is therefore entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Although the court noted that Maldonado Bautista is not binding and that the Ninth Circuit stayed its application outside the Central District of California, the court found persuasive authority in other S.D. Cal. and N.D. Cal. cases. Given the recited facts and the cited authorities, the decision follows the logic of the cited precedents. |
Request for attorney's fees denied without prejudice“Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court denied the request because it was not filed as a separate application within 30 days of the entry of judgment, as required by the court's procedure. This is a standard procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The court correctly identified the legal standard for habeas corpus and applied it to the petitioner's situation. It acknowledged that Maldonado Bautista is not binding and that the Ninth Circuit stayed its application outside the Central District of California, but it cited multiple district court cases from the same district and a neighboring district that agreed with the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista. The court's reliance on these persuasive authorities to grant the petition is defensible, although it does not explicitly address the potential conflict with the Ninth Circuit's stay order. The reasoning is sound but has a gap in that it does not fully reconcile the Ninth Circuit's stay with its decision to apply the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE NUNEZ ACEVEDO, Case Nos. 26-cv-03109, 26-cv-03139 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. Dkt. No. 1 TODD M. LYONS, ET AL., Respondents.
Petitioner Jose Nunez Acevedo filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, requesting immediate release or a bond hearing. (Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”).) The government responded to the Petition, acknowledging that Petitioner “appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV- 01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025),” and thus, the government “do[es] not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (Dkt. No. 7.) For the reasons stated below, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents shall ensure that Petitioner is provided with a bond hearing within 14 days. I. LEGAL STANDARD A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates that they are in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has standing to pursue this Petition. II. ANALYSIS Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, has been residing in the United States since 1996. (Petition ¶¶ 13, 19.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him in the interior of the United States on November 13, 2025, and he remains in immigration detention. (Id.) Petitioner has been charged as being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as someone who entered the United States without inspection. (Id. ¶ 20.) Petitioner received a bond hearing on April 17, 2026, but he was denied bond pursuant to Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Id. ¶ 21.) The Central District of California certified a class of which it appears that Petitioner was initially a member. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1077–78 (C.D. Cal. 2025). The case essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Id. at 1080. The Ninth Circuit has since stayed application of the class to any members outside the Central District of California. Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. DHS, No. 26-1044, Dkt. No. 5 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Although Maldonado Bautista is not binding on this Court, many courts in this district have agreed with the reasoning in Maldonado Bautista and have found that similarly situated petitioners are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-02940-RBM, 2025 WL 3456475, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025); Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS, 2025 WL 3653998, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Cortez Garrido v. Mullin, No. 26-cv-02800-LEK, 2026 WL 1375950, at *1–2 & n.2 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2026); see also Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 936–37 (N.D. Cal. 2025). Therefore, for the reasons stated in those opinions, the Court GRANTS the Petition. Petitioner has also requested that this Court award him attorney’s fees. (Petition at 15.)1 1 Citations to page numbers refer to ECF pagination. The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable attorney’s fees that is filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED without prejudice. Wl. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) within 14 days of the filing of this Order. Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. Ifno bond hearing is held by June 9, 2026, Petitioner shall be released the following day. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 26, 2026 AA RITA F. LIN United States District Judge