Leonel Amilcar Gomez-Cabrera v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court considered an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained under a reinstated removal order who argued he was entitled to release under *Zadvydas v. Davis*. The court denied the petition, holding that *Zadvydas* does not apply while a removal order is under judicial review, but permitted the petitioner to file a further amended petition to assert alternative claims based on the length of detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the *Zadvydas* claim.“For the reasons stated, the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the binding precedent of the Ninth Circuit, *Prieto-Romero v. Clark*, which holds that *Zadvydas* does not apply to noncitizens who are appealing a removal order to the Ninth Circuit because removal remains reasonably foreseeable. The court also correctly noted that *Johnson v. Guzman Chavez* precludes a statutory bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 for aliens subject to reinstated removal orders. By allowing the petitioner to amend to raise a due process claim based on the length of detention, the court preserved the petitioner's ability to seek relief under the correct legal theory. |
Permission to file a further amended petition to assert alternative claims for relief.“No later than June 19, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended petition seeking alternative relief.” | agree with court The court appropriately identified that while the statutory bond claim fails, a constitutional claim based on the length of detention remains viable. Allowing the petitioner to amend the petition to raise this claim is consistent with the court's duty to ensure that a petitioner has the opportunity to present a viable claim for habeas relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the binding Ninth Circuit precedent in *Prieto-Romero v. Clark* to reject the petitioner's *Zadvydas* claim. It also correctly applies the Supreme Court's decision in *Johnson v. Guzman Chavez* to determine that a statutory bond hearing is not required. The court's decision to allow the petitioner to amend the petition to raise a length-of-detention claim is procedurally sound and ensures the petitioner has the opportunity to present a viable constitutional claim.
Opinion
1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 LEONEL AMILCAR GOMEZ- No. 3:26-cv-02330-BTM-DEB CABRERA, 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING AMENDED 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Leonel Amilcar Gomez Cabrera’s amended 2 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 3 A. Background 4 Petitioner, a native of Honduras, was ordered removed in 2008—and he was 5 removed. But in January 2025, Petitioner was detained by immigration officials in the 6 interior of the United States. Immigration officials reinstated Petitioner’s 2008 removal 7 order. Petitioner sought withholding of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied 8 Petitioner’s application in June 2025. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration 9 Appeals (BIA). In February 2026, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. 10 Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit in February 2026. 11 Petitioner claims that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable, and thus that he is 12 entitled to be released under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The Government 13 contends that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), but 14 the Government does not oppose a bond hearing. 15 B. Discussion 16 The Court rejects Petitioner’s reliance on Zadvydas. The Ninth Circuit has already 17 rejected the application of Zadvydas to this situation, that is, where a noncitizen is 18 appealing to the Ninth Circuit and the Government is not yet trying to execute the 19 removal order. Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). Zadvydas 20 applies where the Government is not able to execute a final order of removal. Id. at 1063 21 (“Removal was not reasonably foreseeable in Zadvydas because no country would accept 22 the deportees, or the United States lacked an extradition treaty with their receiving 23 countries.”). Petitioner here, in contrast, “has been found removable by both the IJ and 24 the BIA, but has sought judicial relief from that removal order, thereby delaying his 25 deportation.” Id. at 1064. Petitioner “foreseeably remains capable of being removed -- 26 even if it has not yet finally been determined that he should be removed,” and thus 27 Zadvydas is inapplicable. Id. at 1065; accord G.P. v. Garland, 103 F.4th 898 (1st Cir. 28 1 | 2024) (distinguishing Zadvydas in this context); Castaneda v. Perry, 95 F.4th 750 (4th 2 | Cir. 2024) (same); Martinez v. Larose, 968 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2020). 3 The Court agrees with Petitioner that a bond hearing is not required by statute. 4 | Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 526 (2021) (“We conclude that §1231, not 5 | §1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning 6 | those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing while they pursue withholding of 7 | removal.”). However, Petitioner could pursue a claim for a bond hearing based on the 8 | length of his detention. But he has not done so. The Court will permit Petitioner to file 9 | an amended petition to assert alternative claims for relief. 10 C. Conclusion 11 For the reasons stated, the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. 12 | No later than June 19, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended petition seeking alternative 13 | relief. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: June 3, 2026 _ Honowble Barry Ted Moskowi V7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28