Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.P., Case No. 26-cv-03288-BAS-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 TODD BLANCHE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner J.P. filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was 19 improperly detained after he was admitted to the United States on his own recognizance. 20 (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner requests that he be immediately released on the same terms and 21 conditions as he was previously released or a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) The Government 22 responds. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and 23 orders that Petitioner be granted a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within 14 24 days. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 27 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 28 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 1 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 2 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 3 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 4 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 5 has standing to pursue this Petition. 6 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) detained Petitioner, a Venezuelan 8 citizen, when he entered the United States on September 2023. (ECF No. 1, at ¶ 18.) DHS 9 released Petitioner on his own recognizance. (Id.) 10 On March 17, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence (“DUI”). 11 (ECF No. 1, at ¶ 20.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took custody of 12 Petitioner and kept him in immigration custody without an individualized determination as 13 to whether this arrest for DUI warranted a change in his release conditions. Because he was 14 in ICE custody, Petitioner was unable to appear in state court to address the DUI charge, 15 and a state court warrant is now outstanding. (Id.) 16 On April 30, 2026, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed but 17 granted withholding of removal to Venezuela. (Id. ¶22.) Alternatively, the IJ ordered 18 Petitioner may be removed to Chile where he lived from 2019–23. (Id.) Petitioner has 19 appealed this ruling; hence, his removal order is not yet final. (Id. ¶ 23.) 20 III. ANALYSIS 21 Although the Government seems to agree that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, 22 it bases its concession on its belief that Petitioner is part of the class certified in Maldonado 23 Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). (ECF No. 7.) However, the 24 Maldonado Bautista class applies only to individuals who entered without inspection and 25 were not apprehended upon arrival. Id. Petitioner was apprehended at the border upon 26 arrival, so he does not appear to be part of the Maldonado Bautista class. Nonetheless, this 27 Court finds Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard violates 28 Petitioner’s due process rights. 1 Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a 2 liberty interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 3 (1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. 4 Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those 5 courts that have held: 6 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 7 the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 8 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if 9 the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 10 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 11 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 12 v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 13 (“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 14 government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 15 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 16 revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 17 Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 18 DHS released Petitioner, finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to the 19 community in September 2023. Since then, circumstances have changed as Petitioner was 20 arrested for DUI on March 17, 2026. However, Petitioner is still entitled to due process 21 and a hearing before an IJ, where that IJ can assess whether circumstances have changed 22 since Petitioner’s original release and whether those changed circumstances now warrant 23 detention without bond. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for J.P. 4 (A# 241-505-520) within 14 days of today’s date. At that hearing, □ the Immigration Judge should assess whether circumstances have changed since 5 Petitioner’s release on his own recognizance in September 2023, and whether 6 these changed circumstances now warrant detention instead of release. 7 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || DATED: June 10, 2026 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 1] United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.