Santos Herrera Lanza v. Patrick Divver, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 4 Although Petitio
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jill A. Otake (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking bond eligibility under the class certification in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. The court denied the petition without prejudice, finding the petitioner was not a class member because he was apprehended upon arrival, but granted leave to file an amended petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied Without Prejudice“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the class definition from Maldonado Bautista, which explicitly excludes individuals apprehended upon arrival. The record indicates the petitioner was arrested within a mile of the border on the day of entry, satisfying the exclusionary criterion. Denying the petition without prejudice is appropriate given the court's observation that the petitioner's history of release and re-detention might support a different legal theory for relief. |
Leave to File Amended Petition Granted“Petitioner may file an Amended Petition by June 22, 2026” | agree with court The court identified a potential factual and legal nuance (supervised release followed by re-detention) that might warrant relief under a different theory than the specific class certification. Granting leave to amend allows the petitioner to address this issue, which is a standard and equitable procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and logically consistent. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional basis for the habeas petition, applies the specific class definition from the cited district court order, and makes a factual finding based on the evidence submitted (apprehension upon arrival). The decision to deny without prejudice and allow amendment is a reasonable exercise of discretion given the complex factual history of the petitioner's detention.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTOS HERRERA LANZA, Case No.: 26-CV-3215 JAO (JLB) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT 14 PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office PREJUDICE Director of Enforcement and Removal 15 Operations, San Diego Field Office, (ECF No. 1) 16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 Before the Court is Santos Herrera Lanza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). Also before the Court is Respondents Patrick 21 Divver’s (Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego 22 Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)), Markwayne Mullin’s 23 (Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), Todd Lyon’s (Director of ICE), 24 Todd Blanche’s (Acting Attorney General of the United States), and Christopher 25 LaRose’s (Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center) (collectively, “Respondents” or the 26 “Government”) Return to the Petition (ECF No. 4). 27 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition WITHOUT 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras and entered the United States without 3 inspection on December 23, 2018. See ECF No. 4-1 at 3–4; see also ECF No. 1 ¶ 6(b). 4 Although Petitioner claims he was not apprehended upon his arrival to the United States, 5 ECF No. 1 ¶ 6(b), he was arrested that day within a mile of the border, see ECF No. 4-1 6 at 3. Apparently, Petitioner was released after his arrest, but was again apprehended by 7 immigration authorities on April 9, 2026, while at work. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 6(a). He has 8 been detained since. See id. ¶ 7. Respondents placed Petitioner into removal 9 proceedings, but have not afforded him a bond hearing. See id. ¶¶ 7, 9. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 12 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district 13 of his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole 14 judicial body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or 15 removal is the court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas 16 v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109- 17 13, 119 Stat. 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral 18 issues arising independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of 19 indefinite detention—federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 20 Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other 21 grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. 22 Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citations omitted). 23 DISCUSSION 24 Petitioner argues that he’s a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 25 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26 25, 2025) (“Bautista”). See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 27–31. Respondents retort that Petitioner is 27 not a Bautista class member because he was apprehended upon his arrival to the United 28 States. See ECF No. 4 at 1. 1 To be a member of the Bond Eligible Class, a person must (1) have entered the 2 || United States without inspection, (2) not have been apprehended upon arrival, and (3) not 3 || be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1126(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1125(b)(1) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231 at the 4 ||time the Department of Homeland Security made its initial custody determination. See 5 || Maldonado Bautista, 2025 WL 3288403, at *9.' Here, Respondents submitted evidence 6 || that Petitioner was apprehended upon arrival, which Petitioner has not rebutted. Still, the 7 || fact that Petitioner initially entered in 2018 and was re-detained in 2026 suggests that he 8 || was on some type of supervised release in the intervening years. He may thus be entitled 9 some form of relief from his current detention depending on the circumstances. 10 As such, the Court DENIES the Petition under Bautista but will allow Petitioner 11 || leave to file an Amended Petition. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Petition WITHOUT 14 || PREJUDICE. Petitioner may file an Amended Petition by June 22, 2026 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: June 10, 2026 17 20 % Jill A. Otake 41 > 'S United States District Judge Qa ge 22 23 24 25 | 26 ||! The Court recognizes that the Ninth Circuit has stayed the effect of Maldonado Bautista beyond the Central District of California, see Appeal No. 26-1044 at Dkt. No. 5-1, but that courts in this district continue to find it persuasive and apply its holding in like circumstances. See, e.g., Garcia Garcia v. 28 Mullin, 2026 WL 1303159, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) (acknowledging Bautista and ordering bond