Santos Braulio Elenterio v. Patrick Divver, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Petitioner claims that he is entitled to release and a
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jill A. Otake (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen seeking release and a bond hearing. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing within 14 days, and denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part to order an individualized bond hearing.“The Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days.” | agree with court The order relies on the respondent's concession that they do not oppose a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the petitioner's membership in a certified class from a related case (Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz) where the DHS notice redefining 'applicant for admission' was found unlawful. While the court does not explicitly analyze the legal merits of the bond claim beyond noting the class membership and respondent's non-opposition, the result is consistent with the cited class certification and the statutory framework for bond hearings under § 1226(a). |
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus denied in part regarding immediate release from custody.“The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody.” | agree with court The court denies immediate release but orders a bond hearing. This is a standard procedural posture in habeas cases where the court finds a right to a hearing but does not determine the outcome of that hearing (i.e., whether bond is set or denied) at the initial stage. The denial of immediate release is consistent with the order to hold a hearing first. |
Court will consider EAJA fee application if filed within 30 days.“The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under the EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies the statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) for filing an EAJA application within 30 days of final judgment. It sets a procedural schedule for the fee application and opposition. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is concise and relies heavily on the respondent's concession and the petitioner's status in a previously certified class. It does not provide a detailed legal analysis of why the bond hearing is required under § 1226(a) beyond the class membership and non-opposition. However, given the context of the cited class action and the respondent's explicit non-opposition, the result is defensible. The order is procedural in nature regarding the fees and the specific timeline for the hearing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTOS BRAULIO ELENTERIO, Case No.: 26-CV-3626 JAO (JAC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 PATRICK DIVVER, et al., 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 1) 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Santos Braulio Elenterio’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Also before the Court is Respondents 20 Christopher J. Larose’s (Warden of Otay Mesa Detention center), Patrick Divver’s 21 (Immigration and Customs Enforcement San Diego Field Office Director), Todd 22 Blanche’s (Attorney General of the United States), Todd M. Lyons (Acting Director of 23 Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and Markwayne Mullin (Secretary of the 24 Department of Homeland Security) (collectively, “Respondents”) Return to Habeas 25 Petition. ECF No. 5. 26 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, alleges that he has been detained by the United 27 States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs 28 1 Enforcement (“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since June 3, 2026. See 2 ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to release and a bond hearing. Id. 3 Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista 4 v. Santacruz, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025).1 Id. Although Respondents 5 state that the Ninth Circuit has stayed application of that order beyond the Central District 6 of California, they “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be 7 held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” ECF No. 5 at 1–2. Therefore, the Petition (ECF 8 No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. 9 Petitioner’s counsel requests costs and attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to the 10 Equal Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. ECF No. 1 at 8. The EAJA provides in 11 part: 12 A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an 13 application for fees and other expenses which shows that the 14 party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this subsection, and the amount sought, including an 15 itemized statement from any attorney . . . representing or 16 appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were 17 computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the 18 United States was not substantially justified. Whether or not the position of the United States was substantially justified shall be 19 determined on the basis of the record . . . which is made in the 20 civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought. 21 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). 22 The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under 23 the EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment. 24 25 26 1 On December 18, 2025, the Bautista Court entered final judgment finding that the July 8, 2025, DHS 27 Notice redefining who is considered an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) is 28 unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for 3 Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner 4 with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days. 5 Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 6 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to 7 the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody. 8 The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under 9 the EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment. Petitioner’s attorney is directed 10 to submit an attorney fee application and corresponding billing records within thirty (30) 11 days of this Order, and Respondents are instructed to file any opposition within fourteen 12 (14) days of Petitioner’s attorney fee application. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: June 29, 2026 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28