Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTOR ESPINOZA-LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-3158-JES-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PETITION FOR 14 TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS General; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 15 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and Secretary of DHS; TODD LYONS, 16 Director of ICE; CHRISTOPHER (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa 17 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING Detention Center, ORDER AS MOOT 18 Respondents. 19 [ECF Nos. 1, 3] 20 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Victor Espinoza-Lopez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), (ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”)); and Motion for Temporary 24 Restraining Order (“Motion”). ECF No. 3, (“Mot.”). Pursuant to the Court's Order to Show 25 Cause, Respondents (the “Government") filed the Response, which expressed its non- 26 opposition to the Court ordering Petitioner’s bond hearing, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 27 No. 6, (“Res.”), at 2. The Court has taken the matter under submission and for the reasons 28 set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, a 50-year-old native and citizen of Mexico, has resided and worked in 3 California since 2012. Mot. at 2. He has one prior arrest from a 2015 altercation and 4 successfully completed probation. Id. at 2-3. Since then, Petitioner has had no criminal 5 incidents. Id. Over the last twelve years, Petitioner has developed community ties and has 6 family here, a U.S. citizen niece. Id. at 3–4. 7 Respondents arrested Petitioner on or about March 12, 2026, and transferred him to 8 Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he has remained in continuous custody. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 9. 9 Despite Petitioner’s full cooperation with removal efforts, Respondents have been unable 10 to secure his removal to Mexico, due to the lack of diplomatic cooperation. Id. ¶¶ 2, 11. 11 Petitioner has filed for asylum, the proceedings for which are still pending. Id. ¶ 8. On May 12 20, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition and a Motion for Temporary Restraining 13 Order seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. ECF Nos. 1, 3. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 A writ of habeas corpus is "available to every individual detained within the United 16 States." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 17 2). "The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of 18 that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 19 custody." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of 20 habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he is in custody in violation of the 21 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Challenges to immigration-related 22 detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 23 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 The Court finds that the Petition’s issues—specifically, the Court’s jurisdiction and 26 which statute governs Petitioner’s detention—are analogous to those raised in the Court’s 27 decision in Martinez Lopez v. Noem, et al., No. 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, 28 // 1 at *2–7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow the reasoning stated 2 therein and incorporates it by reference. Id. 3 A. Jurisdiction 4 The Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252's jurisdiction-stripping provisions do not bar it 5 from considering this habeas petition. Id. Moreover, the prudential administrative 6 exhaustion requirement for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claims is excused. Id. Imposing that 7 requirement would be futile given the BIA's precedential decision in Matter of Yajure 8 Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which held that noncitizens who entered without 9 inspection are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) regardless of where 10 or when they were apprehended. See id. at *4–5. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has 11 jurisdiction to hear the Petition. 12 B. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) Governs Petitioner's Detention 13 Although the Ninth Circuit stayed application of the Maldonado Bautista class 14 certification to prospective members outside the Central District of California, Maldonado 15 Bautista v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court 16 has previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with Maldonado Bautista's holding that 17 noncitizens in Petitioner's circumstances are governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1225(b). See, e.g., Velazquez-Beltran v. Noem, No. 3:26-CV-959-JES-MSB, 2026 WL 19 524056, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026); Murillo-Ortiz v. LaRose, No. 3:26-CV-1469- 20 JES-BJW, 2026 WL 800556, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026); Jasbir v. Warden, Imperial 21 Reg'l Adult Det. Facility, No. 26-CV-579-JES-BJW, 2026 WL 353354, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 22 Feb. 9, 2026). 23 Petitioner was not apprehended at or near the border. Pet. ¶ 1. He has resided in the 24 United States and has been in Respondents’ custody since March 12, 2026, well after his 25 entry. Id. ¶¶ 1, 9. These facts make clear that Petitioner "was not actively entering, 26 attempting to enter or had recently entered, the country when apprehended." Martinez 27 Lopez, 2025 WL 3030457, at *6. Accordingly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 28 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), governs Petitioner's detention. 1 C. Petitioner Is Entitled to a Bond Hearing 2 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) provides that noncitizens arrested and detained pending a 3 removal decision may apply for release on bond or conditional parole. 8 U.S.C. §§ 4 1226(a)(2)(A)–(B). If the Government denies that request, the noncitizen may seek a bond 5 hearing before an Immigration Judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1); Johnson v. Guzman 6 Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 527 (2021). As the Court has found that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies 7 to Petitioner's detention, and given the absence of any opposition from Respondents, 8 Petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See 9 Aparicio Juan v. LaRose, No. 3:26-cv-2099-JES-BJW (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026) (granting 10 petition and ordering bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on materially identical facts). 11 D. Temporary Restraining Order 12 Having ruled on the Petition on the merits, the Court declines to apply the Winter 13 factors to determine whether to issue a Temporary Restraining Order. Thus, the Court 14 DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 17 (1) The Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 19 (2) The Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary 20 Restraining Order; 21 (3) The Court ORDERS the Government to provide Victor Espinoza- 22 Lopez with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 23 within ten (10) days of this Order, unless Espinoza-Lopez requests a 24 continuance; 25 (4) Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice of Compliance within 26 five (5) days of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination 27 hearing, including apprising the Court of the results of the hearing; and 28 // l (5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: June 1, 2026 4 Str J. 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 «