Jairo Balmore Chicas Guevara v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Patrick Divver, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE; Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition challenging mandatory detention and medical care, noting that the government's return indicated the petitioner was previously released on parole. The court ordered supplemental briefing to determine if the petitioner was previously detained and paroled, as this fact affects the due process analysis of his current detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order for supplemental briefing regarding petitioner's prior parole status“The Court ORDERS as follows: - By June 30, 2026, Petitioner shall provide supplemental briefing, limited to four (4) pages, addressing whether Petitioner was previously released on parole and how such release affects Petitioner’s habeas arguments.” | agree with court The court correctly identified a material factual discrepancy between the petition (which omitted prior parole) and the return (which asserted prior parole). Because prior parole creates a liberty interest protected by due process, the court's decision to order briefing on this specific issue is a sound procedural step to ensure the record is complete before ruling on the merits. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies a critical factual gap that impacts the legal standard applicable to the petitioner's detention. By citing recent district court authority establishing that parole creates a liberty interest, the court justifies the need for further briefing. It does not reach the merits of the medical care claim or the statutory interpretation of 1225(b) vs 1226(a) yet, which is appropriate given the unresolved factual predicate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIRO BALMORE CHICAS Case No.: 26-cv-3501-GPC-DEB GUEVARA, 12 ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL Petitioner, 13 BRIEFING v. 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 15 TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. 16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PATRICK DIVVER, San Diego Field Office 17 Director, ICE; WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER; and TODD 18 BLANCHE, Attorney General of the 19 United States, 20 Respondents. 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Jairo Balmore Chicas Guevara’s petition for a writ of 22 habeas corpus. Petitioner raises two primary arguments: (1) that he is entitled to a bond 23 hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than subject to mandatory detention under 8 24 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and (2) that he is receiving inadequate medical care in detention. 25 Respondents, in their return to the petition, maintain that Petitioner is subject to 26 mandatory detention pursuant to § 1225(b). However, Respondents also state that 27 “Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on conditional parole issued 28 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” ECF No. 4, at 2. The petition itself did not contain any | |}information regarding Petitioner’s prior detention or parole. See generally ECF No. 1. 2 || Petitioner did not provide a traverse, and the time to do so has since passed. See ECF No. 3 }}2. 4 If Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on parole, then 5 || Petitioner maintained a protected liberty interest in his continued freedom which could not 6 revoked without compliance with due process, including notice and a pre-deprivation 7 |\{hearing. See Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025); Devilmar v. 8 ||LaRose, No. 3:26-CV-01748-JES-MSB, 2026 WL 1042439, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 9 2026); Quiroz v. Larose, No. 26-CV-866 JLS (DEB), 2026 WL 673822, at *2—*3 (S.D. 10 Mar. 10, 2026). Thus, the question of whether Petitioner was previously detained and 11 || granted parole that has now been revoked bears on this Court’s analysis when considering 12 || this habeas petition and the appropriate remedy. 13 Accordingly, the Court seeks additional information on whether Petitioner was 14 || previously in immigration custody and released on parole. The Court ORDERS as follows: 15 - By June 30, 2026, Petitioner shall provide supplemental briefing, limited to four 16 (4) pages, addressing whether Petitioner was previously released on parole and 17 how such release affects Petitioner’s habeas arguments. 18 - By July 2, 2026, Respondent may respond to Petitioner’s briefing. The response 19 is limited to four (4) pages. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 26, 2026 < 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28