Hector Erineo Jacinto Lopez v. Daniel Brightman, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2025) and 1 that prior orders from this Dist
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of a noncitizen residing in the interior of the United States. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the government to provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in part.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the statutory text of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to applicants for admission seeking admission, which does not fit the petitioner's status as a noncitizen residing in the interior. The government's concession that the petitioner belongs to the 'Bond Eligible Class' and the reliance on prior district orders support the conclusion that § 1226(a) governs. Ordering a bond hearing is the standard remedy for wrongful detention under § 1225(b)(2) when § 1226(a) applies. |
Order for individualized bond hearing within 10 days“Respondents SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the date of this order.” | agree with court This is the appropriate equitable remedy to correct the ongoing violation of the INA by providing the statutory process (bond hearing) that was denied. The specific conditions (burden of proof, factors to weigh, prohibition on transfer) align with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly applies the statutory text of the INA to distinguish between § 1225(b)(2) and § 1226(a) based on the petitioner's status as an interior resident. It relies on recent, consistent district court authority and binding Ninth Circuit precedent for the procedural requirements of the bond hearing. The remedy is tailored to the violation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR ERINEO JACINTO LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-4108-GPC(AHG)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 DANIEL BRIGHTMAN, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 On July 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his unlawful detention at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. 19 ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a return on July 22, 2026. ECF No. 4. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Petitioner Hector Erineo Jacinto Lopez (“Petitioner”) is a noncitizen who entered 22 the United States around 2003 and has lived and resided in the United States since his entry. 23 Pet. ¶¶ 6, 14. He has been detained since around July 7, 2026. Id. ¶ 13. 24 DISCUSSION 25 In response to the order to show cause, Respondents claims their position that 26 Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2); however, the Government 27 acknowledges that the Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class 28 certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025) and 1 that prior orders from this District have directed bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2 1226(a) in similar cases. ECF No. 4 at 2. 3 In light of the plain text of § 1225(b)(2)—which requires mandatory detention for 4 “applicant[s] for admission” who are “seeking admission”—and the government’s 5 previous longstanding practice of applying § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2) to 6 noncitizens like Petitioner who are detained in the interior of the United States and have 7 resided here for years, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2). See Esquivel Pacheco v. LaRose, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 9 1176-78 (S.D. Cal. 2026); Lagarda-Vega v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-02970-GPC-DDL, 2025 10 WL 3558931, at *3-*7 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025). 11 In so finding, the Court determines that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy in 12 this case. Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and a bond hearing 13 is therefore sufficient to correct Respondents’ ongoing violation of the INA as to Petitioner. 14 See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2025) 15 (finding a bond hearing, rather than release, to be the appropriate remedy where Petitioner 16 was wrongfully subjected to mandatory detention without a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 17 1225(b)(2) rather than provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, 18 812 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1082 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (same). If Respondents fail to comply with 19 this order, Petitioner may seek further relief from the Court at that time.1 20 CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 22 • The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in part. 23 • Respondents SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 24 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) 25 days of the date of this order. At such hearing: 26 27 28 l o Petitioner will bear the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance 2 of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or danger to the community. 3 See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F 4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 4 o The immigration judge SHALL NOT deny Petitioner bond on the 5 basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. 6 o The immigration judge SHALL weigh the factors outlined in /n re 7 Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). See Martinez v. Clark, 8 124 F.4th 775 (9th Cir. 2024). 9 o The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 10 release and Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines 11 bond is appropriate. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 12 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 o Respondents SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing 14 available to Petitioner and his counsel. 15 e Respondents must FILE a Notice of Compliance within seven (7) days of the 16 hearing confirming that Petitioner was provided with a bond hearing and 17 stating whether Petitioner was released on bond; 18 e Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending his 19 bond hearing; 20 e The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this 21 case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 |!Dated: July 23, 2026 Carseto C4 25 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 26 United States District Judge 27 28