Meresa Haftekiros v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days, and denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus granted in part to order a bond hearing“Therefore, and in light of Respondents’ concession, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests a bond hearing.” | agree with court The court relied on the respondents' concession and its prior decision in Hussain v. LaRose, which found that unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due process. The order incorporates the reasoning from Hussain and applies it to the facts here, consistent with the legal standard cited. |
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied in part to the extent it seeks immediate release“The Court DENIES the Petition to the extent it seeks immediate release.” | agree with court The court ordered a bond hearing rather than immediate release, which is the standard remedy for a due process violation regarding prolonged detention where the government has not yet had the opportunity to prove the need for continued detention at a hearing. Immediate release is typically reserved for cases where the detention is clearly illegal or the hearing cannot be held promptly, but the court set a strict 14-day deadline with automatic release if not met. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on binding district court precedent (Hussain) and Ninth Circuit authority (Singh, Hernandez) to support the due process claim. The court correctly identifies the concession by respondents and applies the established legal standard for prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). The remedy ordered (bond hearing with specific burden of proof and timeline) aligns with the cited authorities. The denial of immediate release is appropriate given the availability of a prompt hearing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MERESA HAFTEKIROS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03658-RBM-SBC 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 v. PETITION 11 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of [Doc. 1] Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Meresa Haftekiros’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 18 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) For the 19 reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED in part. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 22 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 23 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 24 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 25 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 26 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 27 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 28 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 1 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond hearing “has become 4 unreasonably prolonged and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” and 5 the Administrative Procedure Act. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1, 37–66.) He seeks a prompt bond hearing 6 or immediate release. (Id., Prayer for Relief.) Respondents “acknowledge[ ] that courts in 7 this District have repeatedly inferred a constitutional right against prolonged mandatory 8 detention,” and “concede[ ] that this Court should order that Petitioner receive a bond 9 hearing, where the government would bear the burden of proof of establishing, by clear 10 and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of 11 flight.” (Doc. 5 at 1.) 12 The Court has granted petitions filed by similarly-situated petitioners. See, e.g., 13 Hussain v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00194-RBM-MSB, 2026 WL 206715, at *2–4 (S.D. 14 Cal. Jan. 27, 2026). In Hussain, the Court “join[ed] the majority of courts across the 15 country in concluding that an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) 16 without an individualized bond hearing violates due process,” and that the circumstances 17 of the case demonstrated that the petitioner’s detention had become unreasonably 18 prolonged. Id. The Court incorporates its reasoning from Hussain and makes the same 19 findings here. Therefore, and in light of Respondents’ concession, the Court GRANTS 20 the Petition to the extent it requests a bond hearing. The Court DENIES the Petition to the 21 extent it seeks immediate release. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED in part. The Petition 24 is DENIED to the extent it seeks immediate release. Accordingly: 25 1. Respondents are ORDERED to arrange an individualized bond hearing for 26 Petitioner before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of entry of this 27 Order—unless the noncitizen requests a continuance—to determine whether his 28 continued detention is warranted. l 2. The Government SHALL BEAR tthe burden of establishing, by clear and 2 convincing evidence,! that the noncitizen poses a danger to the community or a risk 3 of flight. If the noncitizen does not request a continuance, and no hearing occurs 4 within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from 5 Respondents’ custody. 6 3. If the immigration judge determines that bond is appropriate, the immigration judge 7 SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and the noncitizen’s ability to 8 pay.’ 9 4. On or before July 31, 2026, Respondents SHALL FILE a status report indicating 10 whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing, and the outcome of that bond 11 hearing. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||DATE: July 7, 2026 14 ep Bearnidlr, Moidttrygs D 15 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 ||! See Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (“Petitioner is entitled 99 to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner would 23 likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty interest at stake” warranted 25 || placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence that [a 6 noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond”’). See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A bond determination 27 ||process that does not include consideration of financial circumstances and alternative 28 release conditions is unlikely to result in a bond amount that is reasonably related to the government’s legitimate interests.’’).