Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 26cv1658 DMS BJW BRYAN JOEL FLORES ULLOA, 12 O R D E R D E N Y I N G P E T I T ION 13 Petitioner, v. 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior 15 Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In the 20 Petition, which Petitioner filed pro se, he asserted his continued detention was 21 unconstitutional.1 In response to the Petition, Respondents stated Petitioner was properly 22 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and the removal period had not yet expired. 23 Respondents also mentioned Petitioner was properly subject to mandatory detention under 24 25 26 1 Petitioner also alleged his continued detention was affecting his mental health, and the conditions inside Otay Mesa Detention Center were unsanitary. Conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable on 27 habeas. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973)) (stating civil rights action is “proper method of challenging ‘conditions of … 28 1 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Following the filing of the Return, the Court appointed counsel to 2 represent Petitioner and requested supplemental briefing from the parties. In their 3 supplemental brief, Respondents argued Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention 4 under § 1226(c). To the extent the Court considered Petitioner’s due process challenge to 5 his mandatory detention, Respondents asserted that challenge would fail under the tests set 6 out in both Lopez v. Garland, 631 F.Supp.3d 870 (E.D. Cal. 2022), and Banda v. 7 McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099 (W.D. Wash. 2019). In his supplemental brief, filed with 8 the assistance of counsel, Petitioner argued the case law supported his due process claim 9 based on prolonged detention, even under § 1226(c), and that under any of the applicable 10 tests, Petitioner was entitled to release or a bond hearing. After considering the parties’ 11 arguments, the record, and the relevant legal authority, the Court denies the Petition. 12 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. (Return, Ex. 1.) He entered the United 13 States without inspection on April 29, 2018. (Id.) He was placed in removal proceedings 14 and ordered removed on December 4, 2020. (Return, Ex. 2.) Petitioner appealed that 15 decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed Petitioner’s 16 appeal on February 2, 2026. (Id.) Petitioner appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, 17 which granted Respondents’ motion for summary disposition on June 26, 2026. See Flores 18 v. Blanche, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 26-1177, ECF 19 No. 14.1. 20 At some point after being ordered removed, Petitioner was released from 21 immigration custody. In November 2024, he was charged in this Court with one count of 22 alien smuggling. See United States v. Flores-Ulloa, Case No. 24cr2720 W, ECF No. 1. 23 On March 3, 2025, after entering a guilty plea, Petitioner was sentenced to 8 months in 24 custody followed by 2 years of supervised release. Id., ECF No. 32. After serving that 25 sentence, Petitioner was transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland 26 Security. He is currently detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he has been held 27 since July 2, 2025. 28 1 The parties appear to agree Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). 2 Respondents assert detention under this statute “is constitutional so long as detention serves 3 its purported immigration purpose.” (Respt.’s Supp. Br. at 3.) However, they also 4 acknowledge that prolonged detention may violate due process if the government 5 unreasonably delays pursuing or completing removal proceedings or is detaining the 6 individual “for any reason other than seeking to protect the public and facilitate [ ] 7 removal.” (Id. at 4.) Petitioner responds he is entitled to raise a due process challenge to 8 his detention, and under the relevant factors, he is entitled to either release or a bond 9 hearing. (Pet.’s Supp. Br. at 2-5.) 10 In a recent case, the Court addressed a similar fact pattern involving a due process 11 claim raised by an individual in detention pursuant to § 1226(c). See Alrikabi v. LaRose, 12 Case No. 26cv2561 DMS (VET). In that case, the Court applied the test set out in Mathews 13 v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to the petitioner’s due process claim, and concluded the 14 petitioner had not shown a due process violation under that test. Applying that test here 15 results in the same conclusion. 16 As in Alrikabi, the first Mathews factor weighs in favor of Petitioner as he has a right 17 to be free from government imprisonment, and that right is being affected by his continued 18 detention. 19 The second and third factors, however, weigh in favor of Respondents. As in 20 Alrikabi, Petitioner does not dispute he is properly detained under § 1226(c).2 He also does 21 not address whether he took advantage of a “Joseph hearing” before an immigration judge. 22 Unlike in Alrikabi, Petitioner here has not been afforded a bond hearing, but on its face, § 23 1226(c) does not afford detainees a right to a bond hearing. Given the procedures that were 24 available to Petitioner, and the absence of any evidence that he took advantage of those 25 26 2 In a footnote, Petitioner states he is not being removed as a result of any criminal convictions, (Pet.’s 27 Supp. Br. at 3 n.2), but the record suggests otherwise. In particular, it appears Petitioner was transferred to immigration custody after completion of his criminal sentence in accordance with § 1226(c), which 28 1 || procedures, this factor weighs in favor of Respondents. The third factor, too, weighs in 2 || favor of Respondents for the reasons set out in Alrikabi. 3 Considering the Mathews factors, the parties’ arguments, the record, and the relevant 4 authority, the Court finds Petitioner has not shown he 1s being detained in violation 5 ||of his due process rights. Accordingly, the Petition is denied. The Clerk of Court shall 6 || enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 9, 2026 □ f p\ 9 a Yn. 10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28