Antonio De Jesus Mendez v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Antonio De Jesus Mendez, an El Salvadoran citizen detained by ICE, filed a habeas petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. The Court granted the petition in part, ordering a bond hearing within 7 days under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and denying the request for immediate release based on the existence of a valid administrative warrant.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant in part the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and order a bond hearing within 7 days.“The Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within 7 days.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the legal standard for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It relies on its own precedent (Gregorio, Zavas, Trujillo) and the class certification in Maldonado Bautista to determine that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225 but rather § 1226(a), which provides for a bond hearing. The government conceded this point. The court’s imposition of a 7-day deadline is a reasonable exercise of its equitable powers to ensure compliance, given the government's prior knowledge of the legal standard. |
Deny the request for immediate release based on the lack of an administrative warrant.“to the extent Petitioner requests immediate release because of the lack of an administrative warrant, the Court denies the request.” | agree with court The petitioner argued for immediate release due to a missing warrant. The government produced a supplemental brief attaching a warrant served on July 5, 2026, the day after arrest. The court implicitly found this warrant sufficient to cure the defect or that the defect did not warrant immediate release when a bond hearing was ordered. This is a defensible procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct legal standards for habeas corpus. It correctly distinguishes between mandatory detention under § 1225 and discretionary detention under § 1226(a). The court acknowledges the Ninth Circuit stay but relies on its own district-specific precedent and the government's concession to reach the result. The reasoning for the 7-day deadline is explicitly stated and tied to the government's delay. There are no significant gaps in the legal analysis provided in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ANTONIO DE JESUS MENDEZ, Case No. 26-cv-02963-BAS-AHG 14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 15 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 6) 16 WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Antonio De Jesus Mendez filed an Amended Habeas Petition pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting immediate release from custody or a bond hearing. (ECF 23 No. 6.) The Government responded to the Petition, indicating that Respondents “do not 24 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 25 1226(a).” (ECF No. 8.) 26 Petitioner filed a Traverse, arguing that the Government failed to address his request 27 for immediate release and, thus, he should be released rather than granted a bond hearing. 28 (ECF No. 9.) Specifically, Petitioner argued that he was detained without the required 1 administrative warrant and that this fact justified immediate release. (Id.) The Court 2 ordered the Government to respond to this argument. (ECF No. 10.) The Government filed 3 a Supplemental Brief attaching an administrative warrant that was served upon Petitioner 4 on July 5, 2026, the day after he was arrested. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons stated below, 5 the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a 6 bond hearing within 7 days. 7 I. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 9 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 10 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 11 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 12 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The writ is 13 available to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 14 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since he is seeking release from 15 custody, he has standing to pursue this Petition. 16 II. ANALYSIS 17 Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection 18 thirty-six years ago. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 19 arrested him on July 4, 2025, in the interior of the United States. (Id.) Since his arrest, the 20 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has refused to grant his request for a bond 21 hearing, presumably relying on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). 22 (Id. ¶ 1.) 23 The Central District of California certified a class of which Petitioner was initially a 24 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 25 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit has stayed application of 26 the class to any members outside the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista v. 27 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has 28 previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the court in Maldonado Bautista that 1 || an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 2 || 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. 3 ||Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zavas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 4 ||(S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 5 ||(S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). The Government concedes that Petitioner “is detained under 8 6 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be 7 || held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 8.) 8 For all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court agrees Petitioner 9 entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge pursuant to § 1226(a). However, 10 || to the extent Petitioner requests immediate release because of the lack of an administrative 11 || warrant, the Court denies the request. 12 Further, although the Government requests that it be given 14 days to hold a bond 13 hearing, it has been aware of the opinion in Maldonado Bautista since November 2025, yet 14 still requires a habeas petition to enforce the order outside of the Central District of 15 || California. In addition, this Petition was filed on May 11, 2026, so specifically as to this 16 || Petitioner, the Government has been aware of the need to provide him with a bond hearing 17 || since then. Hence, the Government has had plenty of time despite its “heavy caseloads and 18 staffing levels” to schedule a bond hearing. Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART the 19 || Amended Petition. (ECF No. 6.) 20 CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 22 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Antonio 23 De Jesus Mendez (A# 246-059-538) within 7 days of the date of this Order. A The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). If no bond hearing is held within 7 days, Petitioner is ordered released 25 forthwith. 26 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 || DATED: June 16, 2026 (atta Bahar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge