Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS ALBA, Case No.: 26-CV-3326 JAO (BJW)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et 15 (ECF No. 1) al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is Marcos Alba’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). Also before the Court is Respondents Markwayne 20 Mullin’s (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), Todd Blanche’s 21 (Acting Attorney General of the United States), Gregory J. Archambeault’s (Director of 22 Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego Office, Immigration and Customs 23 Enforcement), and Christopher LaRose’s (Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center) 24 (collectively, “Respondents” or the “Government”) Return to the Petition (ECF No. 4). 25 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition. 26 BACKGROUND 27 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without 28 inspection in 2000 and has lived here since. See ECF No. 1-2 at 4. He apparently never 1 had any interaction with immigration authorities before being detained in the parking lot 2 of a Home Depot in Oceanside, California on March 31, 2026. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 10. On 3 May 22, 2026, Petitioner appeared for a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. See 4 id. ¶ 13; ECF No. 1-2 at 10. However, the Immigration Judge denied bond without 5 considering the relevant factors, instead concluding that Petitioner was subject to 6 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See ECF No. 1-2 at 10. 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 9 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district 10 of his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole 11 judicial body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or 12 removal is the court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas 13 v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109- 14 13, 119 Stat. 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral 15 issues arising independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of 16 indefinite detention—federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 17 Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other 18 grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. 19 Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citations omitted). 20 DISCUSSION 21 Petitioner argues that his detention should be pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather 22 than § 1225(b) and that he’s a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado 23 Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) 24 (“Bautista”). See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 29–33. Respondents concede that Petitioner appears to 25 be a member of the class. See ECF No. 4 at 1. And while the Ninth Circuit stayed the 26 application of that case beyond the Central District of California, Respondents recognize 27 that courts in this district have ordered bond hearings under similar circumstances. See 28 1 id. “Respondents therefore do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond 2 hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Id. at 1–2. 3 The Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 4 1226(a). See, e.g., Esquival-Ipina v. LaRose, 812 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1080–81 (S.D. Cal. 5 2025); Garcia Garcia v. Mullin, 2026 WL 1303159, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) 6 (acknowledging Bautista and ordering bond hearing). 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 9 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to 10 provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a 11 neutral immigration judge in which the Government bears the burden of establishing by 12 clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk 13 if released.1 If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be 14 released from Respondents’ custody. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for release 15 from detention without prejudice but notes that if Respondents do not give Petitioner an 16 adequate bond hearing, the Court may order release in the future. See, e.g., Singh v. 17 LaRose, 2026 WL 1387428, at *5–6 (May 18, 2026); Perez Velasquez v. Bondi, 2026 18 WL 1042479, at *6–7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2026). The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status 19 Report by June 29, 2026, informing the Court of the outcome of the hearing.2 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 1 See, e.g., Barrera v. LaRose, 2026 WL 1303159, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026) (concluding that 26 the Government bears the burden on a bond hearing of a Bautista class member).

27 2 Petitioner requested attorney’s fees, related expenses, and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice 28 Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See ECF No. 1 at 10. Petitioner’s counsel may submit an appropriate ] IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: June 8, 2026 3 | Od 7 5 wy) 6 Jill A. Otake 7 Qe, a : United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28