Liliana De Los Angeles Cortes Ochoa v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for reconsideration of its prior denial of a habeas corpus petition filed by a non-citizen detained at the border. The court denied the motion, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, and reaffirmed that her detention is mandatory under federal immigration law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration, which requires a showing of newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. The petitioner's argument that the court did not receive her traverse before issuing judgment does not constitute clear error or manifest injustice, particularly given the court's substantive finding that the detention is statutorily mandatory. The court's reliance on Jennings v. Rodriguez and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) is consistent with controlling precedent regarding the detention of arriving aliens. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the high standard for reconsideration and applies it to the petitioner's specific argument. The court substantively addresses the underlying habeas claim by citing the mandatory detention statute and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Jennings v. Rodriguez, effectively demonstrating that the prior denial was not in error because the detention is legally required. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a denial of reconsideration.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Liliana De Los Angeles CORTES Case No.: 26-cv-2284-AGS-DEB OCHOA, 4 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Petitioner, RECONSIDERATION (ECF 12) 5 v. 6 7 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Liliana Cortes Ochoa asks this Court to reconsider its earlier denial of her 11 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy,” Kona 12 Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), that “should be used 13 sparingly,” Bennett v. United States, No. 23-cv-01140-BAS-BLM, 2025 WL 745870, at *2 14 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is 15 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 16 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” See 17 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 18 1993). The moving party bears a “heavy burden” to justify “reconsideration of a court’s 19 prior order.” Inventist, Inc. v. Ninebot Inc., 664 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1215 (W.D. Wash. 20 2023). 21 Cortes Ochoa’s sole argument is that, due to delays outside of her control, the Court 22 did not receive her traverse before issuing judgment. She contends that “[d]enying 23 reconsideration under these circumstances would result in manifest injustice.” (ECF 12, 24 at 2.) Yet Cortes Ochoa has not met the high burden of establishing any clear error or 25 manifest injustice. Clear error occurs when, “on the entire record, the Court is left with the 26 definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. 27 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Nothing in the traverse suggests that 28 | Court’s prior ruling was unjust or wrong. In her habeas petition, Cortes Ochoa bore 2 burden of establishing that she was “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 3 ||... of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3). But her detention is not only 4 ||lawful, but required. As an “alien” stopped at the border upon “arriving in the 5 || United States,” the relevant statute mandates that she “shall be detained” during her 6 removal or asylum proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Thus, until the consideration of 7 || her asylum petition 1s complete, including the pending appeal, she must be kept in custody. 8 || See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (“Read most naturally, §§ 1225(b)(1) 9 ||and (b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings 10 concluded. .. . Until that point, however, nothing in the statutory text imposes any 11 || limit on the length of detention. And neither § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) says anything 12 || whatsoever about bond hearings.”’). 13 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 14 Dated: June 18, 2026 16 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28