David Arturo Renteria Perez v. Patrick Divver, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ denied — the Petition is DENIED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee who claimed membership in the *Maldonado Bautista* bond-eligible class. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 14 days, but denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2), relying on the respondent's concession and prior district court precedent. Ordering a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy for a § 1226(a) detainee who has not yet received one. |
Request for immediate release denied“To extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody, the Petition is DENIED.” | agree with court Immediate release is not the standard remedy in § 1226(a) habeas cases where the issue is the lack of a bond hearing; the proper relief is to compel the hearing. The court correctly distinguished between the right to a hearing and the right to immediate release. |
Order for individualized bond hearing within 14 days“The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance.” | agree with court This is consistent with the relief typically granted in *Maldonado Bautista* class actions and similar § 1226(a) habeas petitions in the district. The 14-day timeframe is a standard judicial imposition to ensure prompt compliance. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the respondent's concession and binding district court precedent (*N.A. v. LaRose*) to establish the petitioner's status under § 1226(a). It correctly applies the standard remedy for this type of petition (a bond hearing rather than immediate release). However, it does not explicitly cite the Supreme Court's decision in *Diouf v. Napolitano* or the Ninth Circuit's *Rodriguez v. Robbins* regarding the specific burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) for § 1226(a) bond hearings, though it correctly imposes that burden in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DAVID ARTURO RENTERIA PEREZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03409-RBM-DDL 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 11 PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, 12 [Doc. 1] San Diego Field Office, Immigration and 13 Customs Enforcement, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Petitioner David Arturo Renteria Perez’s (“Petitioner”) 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 18 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection on or 21 around 2006 and was not apprehended upon arrival. (Doc. 1 ¶ 6.) Petitioner was arrested 22 by immigration authorities on May 7, 2026. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 20.) The U.S. Department of 23 Homeland Security then issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible 24 under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). (Id. ¶ 7; 25 see Doc. 1-4 at 1.) Petitioner filed the Petition on June 1, 2026. (Doc. 1.)1 Pursuant to 26 27 1 Petitioner simultaneously filed two additional identical habeas petitions in error. See 28 1 this Court’s order (see Doc. 2), Respondents filed a Response to the Petition on June 12, 2 2026. (Doc. 5.) Petitioner has not filed an optional reply as of the date of this Order. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 5 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 6 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 7 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 8 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 9 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 10 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 11 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 12 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 Petitioner claims he is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado 15 Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025), and that he is being detained 16 in violation of the INA. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2, 26–31.) Respondents concede that Petitioner 17 “appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class in Maldonado Bautista” and “do not 18 oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1226(a).” (Doc. 5 at 2.) 20 In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, and the Court’s previous orders concerning 21 similarly situated petitioners, the Court finds that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a). 22 See N.A. v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-03028-RBM-DEB, 2025 WL 3512412, at *5 (S.D. Cal. 23 Dec. 8, 2025) (finding a petitioner who was not apprehended upon arrival and resided in 24 the United States for 17 years was subject to § 1226’s discretionary detention procedures 25 and entitled to a bond hearing). While Petitioner seeks his immediate release (see Doc. 1 26 27 (granting joint motion to dismiss); Renteria Perez v. Divver, 3:26-cv-3410-LL-MSB (S.D. 28 1 11), the Court finds it appropriate to hold a bond hearing under § 1226(a) to determine 2 ||the conditions of his potential release. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is 3 || entitled to a bond hearing. See N.A., 2025 WL 3512412, at *5. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. To 6 extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody, the Petition is DENIED. 7 || Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS as follows: 8 1. The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized 9 bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 10 this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. 11 2. At the bond hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by 12 clear and convincing evidence, that the noncitizen poses a danger to the 13 community or a risk of flight. 14 3. The Government SHALL NOT deny the noncitizen’s bond on the basis that 8 15 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. 16 4. If the bond hearing is not conducted within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this 17 Order, the Government shall release the noncitizen from custody until it is 18 determined that his detention is warranted under § 1226(a). 19 5. The Government SHALL FILE a status report on or before July 20, 2026 20 indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing and the results 21 of such hearing. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||DATE: June 30, 2026 25 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28