Manuel Alexander Fuentes Guevara v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 8 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking release or a bond hearing. The court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner remains subject to mandatory detention and that his removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons stated above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the mandatory detention statute and the Zadvydas framework. The petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, triggering mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). Regarding the duration of detention, the court applied the six-month presumption from Zadvydas, noting that the petitioner's removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because the only delay is due to his own motion to reopen and subsequent appeal. The court's reliance on the previous order for the mandatory detention analysis is appropriate given the lack of changed facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standards for habeas corpus in immigration detention cases. It properly applies the mandatory detention statute and the Zadvydas six-month presumption. The court's finding that removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future is supported by the record, which indicates that the delay is due to the petitioner's own motion to reopen and appeal. The court appropriately notes that the situation may change if the petitioner's appeal is successful, but finds denial appropriate at this time.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL ALEXANDER FUENTES Case No. 26-cv-03540-BAS-DDL GUEVARA, 12 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Petitioner, 13 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. (ECF No. 1) 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On January 20, 2026, Petitioner Manuel Alexander Fuentes Guevara filed a Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release from immigration custody or a bond hearing. 20 (Case No. 26-cv-0342-BAS-DDL.) The Court denied that Petition, holding: (1) Petitioner 21 was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) because he was subject to 22 a final order of removal; and (2) Petitioner’s detention did not violate Zadvydas v. Davis, 23 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because Zadvydas was concerned with indefinite detention. (Id., ECF 24 No. 7.) That ruling is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 25 Petitioner now files a second Petition. (ECF No. 1.) Very little has changed since the 26 Court’s last order, and the Government argues that this is an improper successive petition 27 under Calderon v. U.S. District Court for Central District of California, 163 F.3d 530, 537 28 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled in part on other grounds by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 1 206 (2003). Petitioner files a Traverse claiming there are two additional facts in this second 2 Petition: (1) on May 28, 2026, an Immigration Judge declined to conduct a bond hearing, 3 finding he lacked jurisdiction to do so; and (2) Petitioner has now been in custody for seven 4 months. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Petition. 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD 6 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 7 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 8 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 9 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 10 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The writ is 11 available to noncitizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 12 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since he is seeking release from 13 custody, he has standing to pursue this Petition. 14 II. BACKGROUND 15 The facts have changed little since the Court denied Petitioner’s first Petition. On 16 April 14, 2005, Petitioner entered the United States illegally. Petitioner failed to appear for 17 an immigration hearing on November 7, 2005, and he was ordered removed from the 18 United States in absentia. On November 7, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 19 (“ICE”) arrested Petitioner and made arrangements to repatriate him to El Salvador. 20 Petitioner moved to reopen his removal, which was denied by an Immigration Judge. That 21 denial is currently on appeal. 22 III. ANALYSIS 23 For all the reasons stated in this Court’s previous order, Petitioner is subject to 24 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). (See Case No. 26-cv-0342-BAS-DDL, 25 ECF No. 7.) In addition, although Petitioner has now been in custody for more than six 26 months, at this point, the Court does not find that “there is no significant likelihood of 27 removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 28 (2001) (“This 6–month presumption, of course, does not mean that every alien not removed 1 |}must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may be held in confinement 2 it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 3 ||reasonably foreseeable future.’’). 4 The Government previously presented evidence that an individual can be removed 5 ||to El Salvador in two to three days. The only reason Petitioner has not been removed is 6 || because he moved to reopen his removal proceedings and then, because that motion to 7 ||reopen was denied, he appealed the denial. At this point, the Court finds his removal is 8 || likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Of course, if Petitioner obtains a reversal and is 9 ||able to reopen his removal proceedings, then he will be in a different posture, but until 10 |/then, the Court finds denial of the Petition is appropriate. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons stated above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 13 ||CECF No. 1.) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: July 1, 2026 (yi. Duhark 17 H@én. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 8 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48