David Tejeda Hernandez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas petition filed by an immigration detainee seeking a bond hearing and immediate release, noting the government's concession that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court granted the petition, ordering a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within 10 days, and denied the petitioner's request for immediate release or a district court hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus“The Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within the requested 10 days.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the legal standard for habeas corpus relief to a detainee who is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but rather falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing. The government conceded the petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing, and the court's order to hold the hearing within 10 days is a reasonable exercise of its authority to secure release from illegal custody. |
Denying Request for Immediate Release or District Court Bond Hearing“To the extent Petitioner argues he should be released immediately or a bond hearing should be held in district court, the Court finds insufficient evidence that all Immigration Judges’ neutrality has been compromised and denies this request.” | agree with court The court correctly declines to order immediate release or to hold the bond hearing in district court because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the neutrality of all Immigration Judges was compromised. The proper remedy for a detainee entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is a hearing before an Immigration Judge, not immediate release or a district court hearing, absent a showing that the administrative process is fundamentally flawed. |
Denying Motion to Bar Transfer as Moot“The Motions to Bar Transfer (ECF No. 2) and to Expedite Consideration (ECF No. 3) are DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly denied the motion to bar transfer as moot because the court granted the petition and ordered a bond hearing, rendering the transfer issue irrelevant. |
Denying Motion to Expedite Consideration as Moot“The Motions to Bar Transfer (ECF No. 2) and to Expedite Consideration (ECF No. 3) are DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly denied the motion to expedite consideration as moot because the court granted the petition and ordered a bond hearing within 10 days, which addresses the petitioner's urgency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound because it correctly applies the legal standard for habeas corpus relief to a detainee who is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but rather falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing. The court's reliance on the government's concession and its prior case law is appropriate, and its denial of the petitioner's request for immediate release or a district court hearing is supported by the lack of sufficient evidence that all Immigration Judges' neutrality has been compromised.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID TEJEDA HERNANDEZ, Case No. 26-cv-3391-BAS-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. 1. GRANTING AMENDED PETITION (ECF No. 9); 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 15 2. DENYING MOTION TO BAR Respondent. 16 TRANSFER AS MOOT (ECF No. 2); AND 17 18 3. DENYING MOTION TO 19 EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION AS MOOT (ECF No. 3) 20 21 22 Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting 23 a bond hearing within ten days. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner also argues that, because 24 Immigrations Judges’ neutrality has been compromised, this Court could order outright 25 release or hold a bond hearing in the district court. (Id.) The Government responded to the 26 Petition, acknowledging that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Maldonado class 27 and, therefore, the Government does not oppose an order from the Court directing a bond 28 hearing be held before an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 1 12.) However, the Government requests 14 days to hold the bond hearing because of 2 “heavy caseloads and staffing levels.” (Id.) For the reasons stated below, the Court 3 GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing within the 4 requested 10 days. However, the Court declines to order immediate release or to hold the 5 bond hearing in the district court. 6 I. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 8 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 9 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 10 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 11 custody in violation of the Constitution or Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 12 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 13 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 14 standing to pursue this Petition. 15 II. ANALYSIS 16 Petitioner entered the United States without detection in November 2014. (Amended 17 Petition, ECF No. 9.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested him on 18 April 29, 2026, in the interior of the United States. (Id.) Since his arrest, Department of 19 Homeland Security (“DHS”) has refused to grant his request for a bond hearing, 20 presumably relying on In the Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). 21 The Central District of California has certified a class of which Petitioner is a 22 member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 23 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025). This Court has previously held in multiple cases that it 24 agrees with the Court in Maldonado Bautista that an individual in Petitioner’s situation is 25 not subject to mandatory detention under section 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 26 25-cv-3322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Duniesky Martinez 27 Zayas v. Adam Gordon, No. 26-cv-237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 28 2026); Benito Aguilar Trujillo v. Kristin Noem, No. 26-cv-268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 1 || 266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). The Government concedes that Petitioner appears to be a 2 member of the Maldonado class and, thus, is entitled to a bond hearing. 3 For all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS the 4 || Petition. Although the Government requests that it be given 14 days to hold a bond hearing, 5 ||it has been aware of the opinion in Maldonado-Bautista since November 2025, yet it still 6 || requires a habeas petition to enforce the order out of the Central District of California. In 7 || addition, this Petition was filed June 4, 2026, so specifically as to this Petitioner, the 8 ||Government has been aware of the need to provide him a bond hearing since then. Hence, 9 || the Government has had plenty of time despite its “heavy caseloads and staffing levels” to 10 ||}schedule a bond hearing. The Petitioner requests 10 days, and the Court finds that is 11 || appropriate. 12 To the extent Petitioner argues he should be released immediately or a bond hearing 13 ||/should be held in district court, the Court finds insufficient evidence that all Immigration 14 || Judges’ neutrality has been compromised and denies this request. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 17 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for David Tejeda 18 Hernandez (A221-486-833) within 10 days of the date of this Order. The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) not § 1225(b)(2). Ifno bond hearing is held within 19 || 10 days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith. 20 The Motions to Bar Transfer (ECF No. 2) and to Expedite Consideration (ECF No. 21 ||3) are DENIED as moot. 22 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ~ 25 DATED: July 7, 2026 yatta Bahar te 6 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 27 28 48