Erik Carballo-Figueroa v. Patrick Divver, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition filed by an immigration detainee seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to be held within 7 days, with immediate release if the hearing is not held.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the extent it requests a bond hearing.“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests a bond hearing and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 7 days.” | agree with court The court relied on the government's concession that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its own prior precedent agreeing with the Central District of California's ruling in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
Ordering a bond hearing within 7 days and immediate release if not held.“The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Erik Carballo-Figueroa (A#200-566-248) within 7 days of the date of this Order. ... If no bond hearing is held within 7 days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith.” | agree with court The court set a specific deadline based on the government's delay in scheduling the hearing despite prior knowledge of the relevant legal standard. The remedy is appropriate given the government's concession and the petitioner's ongoing detention. |
Denying immediate release.“Because Petitioner has not been previously released from immigration custody with conditions in place, the Court does not find immediate release is appropriate.” | agree with court The court declined to order immediate release, opting instead for a prompt bond hearing. This is a discretionary determination consistent with the goal of securing a bond hearing rather than unconditional release. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally straightforward and relies on the government's concession and the court's own prior precedent. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard and provides a specific, enforceable remedy. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of motion presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIK CARBALLO-FIGUEROA, Case No. 26-cv-2984-BAS-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 PATRICK DIVVER, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting immediate 18 release or a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded to the Petition, 19 acknowledging that Petitioner is entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond 20 hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner replies asking that 21 Petitioner be released immediately or that a bond hearing be held in less than 14 days. (ECF 22 No. 5.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it 23 requests a bond hearing and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 7 days. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 26 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 27 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 28 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 1 custody in violation of the Constitution or Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 2 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 3 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 4 standing to pursue this Petition. 5 II. ANALYSIS 6 Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, last entered the United States in 2011 without 7 inspection. (Petition, ECF No. 1 ¶ 26.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 8 arrested him on April 23, 2026, in the interior of the United States. (Id. ¶ 27.) Since his 9 arrest, Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has refused to grant his request for a 10 bond hearing, presumably relying on In the Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 11 (BIA 2025). (Id. ¶ 1.) 12 The Central District of California has certified a class of which Petitioner is a 13 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 14 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit has stayed certification of 15 this class outside the Central District of California, this Court has previously held in 16 multiple cases that it agrees with the court in Maldonado Bautista that an individual in 17 Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under section 1225. See, e.g., 18 Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-3322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 19 2025); Duniesky Martinez Zayas v. Adam Gordon, No. 26-cv-237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 20 266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Benito Aguilar Trujillo v. Kristin Noem, No. 26-cv-268- 21 BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). The Government concedes that 22 Petitioner is entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant 23 to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 4.) 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 For all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS the 26 Petition. Although the Government requests that it be given 14 days to hold a bond hearing, 27 it has been aware of the opinion in Maldonado-Bautista since November 2025, yet it still 28 requires a habeas petition to enforce the order out of the Central District of California. In 1 || addition, this Petition was filed two weeks ago on May 12, 2026, so specifically as to this 2 || Petitioner, the Government has been aware of the need to provide him a bond hearing since 3 ||then. Hence, the Government has had plenty of time despite its heavy caseloads and 4 || staffing levels to schedule a bond hearing. 5 Because Petitioner has not been previously released from immigration custody with 6 || conditions in place, the Court does not find immediate release is appropriate. 7 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 8 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Erik Carballo- 9 Figueroa (A#200-566-248) within 7 days of the date of this Order. The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) not § 1225(b)(2). If no bond hearing is held within 7 10 || days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith. 11 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ~ 14 || DATED: May 27, 2026 (yatta Bahar □□ Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48