Octavio Bello Perez v. Todd Blanche, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking a bond hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing within 14 days and prohibiting the denial of bond based on mandatory detention provisions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted“For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court relied on the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz and subsequent district court decisions to conclude that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, thereby entitling him to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The government did not oppose the petition. The decision follows the cited authorities and the lack of opposition. |
Request for attorney's fees denied without prejudice“Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court deferred the fee request, allowing the petitioner to file a formal application within 30 days of judgment. This is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure fees are calculated based on the final outcome and reasonable hours, rather than an immediate award. |
The order itself: sound — The court correctly identified the legal standard for habeas corpus and applied the reasoning from Maldonado Bautista and subsequent district court decisions to grant the petition. The government's lack of opposition and the petitioner's status within the certified class (or similarly situated) support the outcome. The order is procedurally sound and relies on relevant, recent authority.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OCTAVIO BELLO PEREZ, Case No. 26-cv-04021 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. Dkt. No. 1 TODD BLANCHE, ET AL., Respondents.
Petitioner Octavio Bello Perez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, requesting a bond hearing. (Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”).) The government responded to the Petition, acknowledging that Petitioner “appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025),” and thus, the government “do[es] not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. [Section] 1226(a).” (Dkt. No. 5 at 1–2.) 1 For the reasons stated below, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents shall ensure that Petitioner is provided with a bond hearing within 14 days. I. LEGAL STANDARD A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates that they are in custody in 1 Citations to page numbers refer to ECF pagination. violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has standing to pursue this Petition. II. ANALYSIS Petitioner, a Mexican national, has been residing in the United States since 2009. (Petition ¶ 18.) While Petitioner was driving to work in the interior of the United States on June 18, 2026, two SUVs pulled up beside him at a stoplight. (Id. ¶¶ 18–19.) Men got out of the SUVs, started yelling his name, pulled him out of his vehicle, and said he was under arrest for being in the country illegally. (Id. ¶ 19.) The Department of Homeland Security subsequently placed him in removal proceedings, and he remains in immigration detention. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 19.) Petitioner has been charged as being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as someone who entered the United States without inspection. (Id. ¶ 19.) Petitioner has not been given a bond hearing, presumably in reliance on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (See id. ¶¶ 20, 26.) The Central District of California certified a class of which it appears that Petitioner was initially a member. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1077–78 (C.D. Cal. 2025). The case essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Id. at 1080. The Ninth Circuit has since stayed application of the class to any members outside the Central District of California. Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. DHS, No. 26-1044, Dkt. No. 5 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Although Maldonado Bautista is not binding on this Court, many courts in this district have agreed with the reasoning in Maldonado Bautista and have found that similarly situated petitioners are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-02940-RBM, 2025 WL 3456475, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025); Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS, 2025 WL 3653998, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Cortez Garrido v. Mullin, No. 26-cv-02800-LEK, 2026 WL 1375950, at *1–2 & n.2 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2026); see also Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 936–37 (N.D. Cal. 2025). Therefore, for the reasons stated in those opinions, the Court GRANTS the Petition. Petitioner has also requested that this Court award him attorney’s fees. (Petition at 10.) The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable attorney’s fees that is filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED without prejudice. I. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) within 14 days of the filing of this Order. Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. If no bond hearing is held by August 3, 2026, Petitioner shall be released the following day. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2026 Z RITA F. LIN United States District Judge