Juan Francisco Martinez Campos v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Respondents “therefore do not oppose an O
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen seeking release and a bond hearing. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen days, while denying the request for immediate release from custody.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant in part of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) based on the respondents' acknowledgment and prior district orders, despite the stay of the class certification in Maldonado Bautista. The reliance on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland for the burden of proof is appropriate for this circuit. |
Order for individualized bond hearing“ORDERS the Government to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days, unless Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance.” | agree with court The order aligns with the statutory requirement for bond hearings in removal proceedings under § 1226(a) and the respondents' concession that such hearings are required in similar cases in this district. |
Denial of immediate release from custody“The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests be released from custody.” | agree with court The court properly distinguishes between the right to a bond hearing and the immediate right to release. Release is contingent upon the outcome of the bond hearing where the petitioner must meet the burden of proof. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct statutory framework (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) and binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Diaz) for the burden of proof. It correctly notes the stay of the class action and relies on the respondents' concession and prior district orders to justify the bond hearing. The distinction between ordering a hearing and granting immediate release is legally correct.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN FRANCISCO MARTINEZ Case No.: 26-CV-3188 JLS (VET) CAMPOS, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Petitioner, 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary 15 (ECF No. 1) Department of Homeland Security, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Juan Francisco Martinez Campos’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 20 is Respondents’ Return to Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 6). Petitioner has resided in 21 the United States “for many years” and alleges that he has been detained since May 5, 22 2026, when he was arrested on his way home from work. Pet. at 6–7. Petitioner claims 23 that he is entitled to release and a bond hearing. Id. at 11. 24 Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista 25 v. Santacruz, No. 25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. 26 27 28 1 Nov. 25, 2025).' Ret. at 1. Respondents acknowledge that, while Bautista is stayed, 2 ||“prior orders from this District direct[] bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in 3 || similar cases.” Jd. at 1-2. Respondents “therefore do not oppose an Order requiring such 4 ||a hearing for Petitioner.” /d. at 2. Therefore, the Petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN 5 PART. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ 8 ||of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and ORDERS the Government to provide Petitioner with 9 || an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days, unless 10 || Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance. Bond SHALL NOT be denied on the 11 |/basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. The non-citizen bears the 12 || burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are not a danger to 13 community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F Ath 1189, 1197 (9th 14 || Cir. 2022). The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests 15 be released from custody. 16 The Parties SHALL FILE a status report informing the Court of the outcome of the 17 || hearing by June 19, 2026. The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 29, 2026 . tt f te 20 on. Janis L. Sammartino 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 07 On March 6, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the Bautista decision “insofar as the district court’s judgment extends beyond the Central District of California.” Maldonado Bautista, et 8 v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 26-1044, ECF No. 5 (9th Cir. March 6, 2026). Therefore, the Court resolves the Petition without reliance on Maldonado Bautista.