Jesus Antonio Calderon Gonzalez v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the revocation of the petitioner's DACA-based release without notice or a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. The court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing by August 3, 2026, addressing whether the case is distinguishable from prior district court orders and other Ninth Circuit cases recognizing a protected liberty interest in DACA status.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring supplemental briefing on the existence of a liberty interest in DACA status and the applicability of prior case law.“The Parties SHALL FILE their supplemental briefing addressing the above by August 3, 2026.” | agree with court The court did not decide the merits of the habeas petition but instead sought clarification on how the petitioner's claims align with recent district court decisions within the circuit that have recognized liberty interests in DACA status. This is a procedural step to ensure the court has the necessary legal framework to adjudicate the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive to obtain supplemental briefing. It correctly identifies the legal issue (due process/liberty interest) and cites relevant, recent district court authority within the circuit to frame the questions for the parties. It does not skip arguments or authorities because it is not making a final ruling on the merits.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS ANTONIO CALDERON Case No.: 26-CV-3537 JLS (JLB) GONZALEZ, 12 ORDER REQUIRING Petitioner, 13 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING v. 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Jesus Antonio Calderon Gonzalez’s Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Petitioner argues in part that the revocation 20 of his release pursuant to his prior DACA status without notice or an opportunity to be 21 heard violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pet. ¶¶ 92–97. The Court 22 requires supplemental briefing addressing the following: 23 (1) Whether this case is distinguishable, if at all, from the Court’s prior orders finding 24 a liberty interest in release requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard. See 25 Salazar v. Casey, No. 25-CV-2784-JLS, 2025 WL 3063629 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 26 2025). 27 (2) Whether this case is distinguishable, if at all, from other cases in this Circuit 28 finding a protected liberty interest in DACA status even after its expiration and l with a subsequent criminal history. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Warden, Golden State 2 Annex Det. Facility, No. 26-CV-3727-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 1759597 (E.D. Cal. 3 June 18, 2026); Ramirez v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 26- 4 CV-2544-DAD-AC, 2026 WL 1078250 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2026). 5 The Parties SHALL FILE their supplemental briefing addressing the above by 6 || August 3, 2026. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 22, 2026 9 (ee on. Janis L. Sammartino 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28