Esteban Pedraza Cabrera v. Christopher La Rose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The court in Maldonado Bautista entered final judgment as to 27 the Bond Eligible Class on December 18, 2025, and the Ninth Circuit later stayed 28 1
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained individual alleging that his continued detention exceeded statutory authority and violated due process. The court granted the petition and ordered the respondents to hold a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by June 26, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” | agree with court The court relied on the respondents' acknowledgment that the petitioner is a member of a certified class in a prior case (Maldonado Bautista) where final judgment had been entered, and the respondents' explicit statement that they did not oppose an order directing a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Given the lack of opposition and the prior class certification, granting the petition is a logical procedural step to resolve the detention status. |
Ordering a bond hearing to be held no later than June 26, 2026“Respondents shall hold a bond hearing no later than June 26, 2026, and cannot deny bond the hearing based on § 1225.” | agree with court The order specifies the statutory basis for the hearing (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) and sets a specific deadline. It also explicitly prohibits denying bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which aligns with the respondents' concession and the prior class action context. |
Enjoining respondents from transferring the petitioner before the bond hearing“Respondents continue to be enjoined from transferring Petitioner before a bond hearing takes place.” | agree with court This is a standard protective measure in habeas proceedings to ensure the petitioner remains available for the hearing and that the court's order is not rendered moot by removal from the jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is brief and relies heavily on the respondents' concession and the prior class certification. It does not independently analyze the constitutional due process claim or the statutory authority beyond citing the relevant sections. However, given the respondents' explicit non-opposition and the prior final judgment in the class action, the result is defensible and procedurally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTEBAN PEDRAZA CABRERA, Case No.: 26-cv-3348-BJC-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 CHRISTOPHER LA ROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On June 1, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting his continued detention exceeds statutory authority 19 and violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Petitioner requests 20 that this Court assume jurisdiction over the matter, grant the Petition, and order 21 Respondents to schedule a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 22 This Court set a briefing schedule and issued a limited stay. ECF No. 3. 23 Respondents filed a Return to the petition on June 9, 2026, in which they note that 24 Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado 25 Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 26 Dec. 18, 2025). ECF No. 5. The court in Maldonado Bautista entered final judgment as to 27 the Bond Eligible Class on December 18, 2025, and the Ninth Circuit later stayed 28 1 || “acknowledge the prior orders from this District directing bond hearings pursuant to 8 2 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in similar cases” and “therefore do not oppose an order from this Court 3 || directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” ECF No. 5 at 2. 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 5 || Respondents shall hold a bond hearing no later than June 26, 2026, and cannot deny bond 6 the hearing based on § 1225. Respondents continue to be enjoined from transferring 7 || Petitioner before a bond hearing takes place. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: June 11, 2026 10 12 13 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28