Gustavo Angel De Jesus v. United States Attorney General, 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 considered 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 respondents to hold a bond hearing pursuant to 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 granted the petition based on the respondents' acknowledgment of prior district orders and their non-opposition to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), citing the class certification in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. While the order relies on the respondents' concession and the cited district court precedent, it does not explicitly analyze the statutory distinction between 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and § 1226 or the specific due process claims raised in the petition, relying instead on the procedural posture and the cited class action. |
Ordering a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)“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 court ordered a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and explicitly prohibited denying bond based on § 1225. This aligns with the respondents' acknowledgment of prior orders directing bond hearings under § 1226(a) in similar cases and the class certification in Maldonado Bautista. The order effectively resolves the statutory authority dispute by mandating the application of § 1226(a) rather than § 1225. |
Enjoining transfer of Petitioner before bond hearing“Respondents continue to be enjoined from transferring Petitioner before a bond hearing takes place.” | agree with court The court maintained the injunction against transfer, which was likely established in the earlier limited stay (ECF No. 2). This is a standard protective measure to ensure the petitioner is present for the ordered bond hearing. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound as it relies on the respondents' explicit non-opposition and acknowledgment of prior district orders, as well as a cited class action judgment. However, it is 'sound with gaps' because it does not provide an independent legal analysis of the statutory distinction between 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and § 1226 or the due process claims, instead relying heavily on the procedural posture and the cited district court precedent. The order does not cite binding Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit authority on the specific statutory interpretation issue, though the respondents' concession mitigates the need for extensive legal analysis.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO ANGEL DE JESUS, Case No.: 26-cv-3245-BJC-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On May 26, 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. 2. 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 || application of the Order beyond the Central District of California. However, Respondents 2 || “‘acknowledge the prior orders from this District directing bond hearings pursuant to 8 3 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in similar cases” and “therefore do not oppose an order from this Court 4 || directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” ECF No. 4. 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 6 || Respondents shall hold a bond hearing no later than June 26, 2026, and cannot deny bond 7 the hearing based on § 1225. Respondents continue to be enjoined from transferring 8 || Petitioner before a bond hearing takes place. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: June 11, 2026 1]
13 14 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28