Honorio Ajanel Vicente v. Warden of Imperial Region Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ denied — The Petition is DENIED as to 15 Petitioner’s request for immediate release from custody.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Kobayashi Leslie E. Kobayashi (author)
Analysis
Petitioner, a Guatemalan national detained by DHS, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond hearing or release. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing within seven days, and denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Petitioner's request for an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days.“The Petition is GRANTED insofar as the government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under Title 8 United States Code Section 1226(a) within seven days of the filing of this Order.” | agree with court The court relied on the Respondent's concession that the Petitioner belongs to the 'Bond Eligible Class' and that prior orders in the district direct bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court explicitly noted it was not relying on the stayed *Maldonado Bautista* decision but rather on the Respondent's acknowledgment of existing district directives. The decision follows from the record recited in the order. |
Denying Petitioner's request for immediate release from custody.“The Petition is DENIED as to Petitioner’s request for immediate release from custody.” | agree with court The court ordered a bond hearing rather than immediate release, which is the standard procedural remedy when a bond hearing is required but has not yet occurred. The order does not provide specific reasoning for denying immediate release other than the grant of the hearing, but this is consistent with habeas corpus procedure where the court orders the process (hearing) rather than the outcome (release) directly. |
Denying Respondent's request to extend the bond hearing deadline to fourteen days.“This Court denies Respondent’s request to allow Petitioner’s individualized bond hearing to be held within fourteen days after the filing of this order.” | agree with court The court weighed the Petitioner's interest in an expeditious remedy against the Respondent's general concerns and found the Petitioner's interest outweighed them. The court allowed for a motion to extend if specific case reasons are provided, which is a reasonable procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal basis for the bond hearing (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) and relies on the Respondent's concession and prior district orders rather than the stayed *Maldonado Bautista* decision. The court explicitly addresses the stay of *Maldonado Bautista* and clarifies that it is not relying on it, which avoids potential jurisdictional or preclusive issues. The denial of immediate release in favor of a bond hearing is standard. The order is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3
4 HONORIO AJANEL VICENTE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03877-LEK-JLB 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART PETITION 7 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 8 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 DETENTION FACILITY, 9 Respondent. 10 11 Before this Court is Petitioner Honorio Ajanel Vicente’s (“Petitioner”) 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on July 6, 13 2026. [Dkt. no. 1.] Respondent Warden of Imperial Region Detention Facility 14 (“Respondent”) filed a Response to Petition (“Response”) on July 13, 2026. [Dkt. no. 4.] 15 While this Court acknowledges that the time to file a reply has not yet passed, upon 16 review of the Petition and the Response, this Court finds that additional argument is not 17 necessary. 18 Petitioner entered the United States over ten years ago. See Petition at pg. 4. 19 According to Petitioner’s Notice to Appear, which was issued by the Department of 20 Homeland Security (“DHS”) on April 28, 2026, Petitioner is a native and citizen of 21 Guatemala. [Petition, Exhibit at 1.] Petitioner has been detained since 2026, and he 22 alleges that he is currently in DHS immigration custody at the Imperial Region Detention 23 Facility in Calexico, California. Petitioner alleges he is entitled to, inter alia, a bond 24 hearing or, in the alternative, release. See Petition at pg. 4. 25 Respondent concedes that “Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond 26 Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz.” Response at 2; see also 27 1 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2025). 2 Respondent also acknowledges that, while Maldonado Bautista is stayed,1 “prior orders 3 from this District direct[] bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in similar cases.” 4 [Id.] “Respondent[] therefore do[es] not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond 5 hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” [Id.] Therefore, this Court grants 6 Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing.2 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Honorio Ajanel Vicente’s Petition for 9 Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed July 6, 2026, is GRANTED IN 10 PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Petition is GRANTED insofar as the government is 11 ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under Title 8 12 United States Code Section 1226(a) within seven days of the filing of this Order. The 13 government SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that Title 8 United States 14 Code Section 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. The Petition is DENIED as to 15 Petitioner’s request for immediate release from custody. 16 17 18 19 1 This Court notes that on March 6, 2026, the Ninth Circuit administratively stayed 20 the Maldonado Bautista decision “insofar as the district court’s judgment extends beyond 21 the Central District of California.” Maldonado Bautista et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security et al., No. 26-1044, Order, filed 3/6/26 (dkt. no. 5), at 1. Therefore, this Court 22 resolves the instant Petition without reliance on Maldonado Bautista. 23 2 This Court denies Respondent’s request to allow Petitioner’s individualized bond 24 hearing to be held within fourteen days after the filing of this order. See Response at 2 25 n.1. Petitioner’s interest in an expeditious remedy for the violation of his rights outweighs the general concerns cited by Respondent. If there is a case-specific reason why 26 Petitioner’s individualized bond hearing should be held within fourteen days, Respondent 27 may file a motion to extend the deadline. Respondent’s motion must establish the reason why an extension is necessary through a declaration or other supporting documents. 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAIT, July 15, 2026 3 oe, re /s! Leslie E. Kobayashi 5 Leslie E. Kobayashi 6 EF <6 Senor U.S. District Judge , repre 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || HONORIO AJANEL VICENTE V. WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGION 3 DETENTION FACILITY; 3:26-cv-03877 LEK-JLB; ORDER GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 24 25 26 27 28