Sebastian Pablo Alberto v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen who was re-detained after having previously been released on an Order of Release on Recognizance (OREC). The court granted the petition and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, subject to the conditions of his prior release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering the immediate release of the Petitioner.“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. The Government is ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of his prior release that existed at the time he was re-detained.” | agree with court The court relied on the Government's concession that its prior decisions would control and that the facts were not materially distinguishable. It cited unpublished district court decisions (Totskii and Isoev) to support the proposition that a prior grant of release creates a liberty interest requiring due process. While the legal conclusion that a prior release creates a liberty interest is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 582 U.S. 297 (2018)), the court's reliance on unpublished, non-binding district court orders as the primary authority for the legal standard is procedurally weak, though the result is supported by the Government's concession and the general legal principle. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is 'sound with gaps.' It reaches a defensible result based on the Government's concession and the well-established legal principle that prior release creates a liberty interest. However, it skips citing binding Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent (such as Zadvydas or Jennings) that directly supports the due process requirement in this context, relying instead on unpublished district court orders. This is a gap in legal authority, though not necessarily an error in outcome given the concession.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEBASTIAN PABLO ALBERTO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02489-JES-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Sebastian Pablo Alberto’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 18 Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). 19 Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 2), Respondents (the 20 “Government”) filed the Return. ECF No. 4 (“Ret.”). In the Return, the Government 21 maintains that Section 1225(b)(2) governs Petitioner’s detention but does not oppose the 22 Petition and defers to the Court to determine the appropriate relief. Id. at 2-3. The Court 23 ordered supplemental briefing on the “circumstances surrounding how or when Petitioner 24 was first detained … to determine which noncitizen detention statute (i.e., 8 U.S.C. §§ 25 1225(b)(2)(A) or 1226(a)) governs Petitioner’s detention.” ECF No. 6 at 2. 26 The Government filed a status report indicating that Petitioner last entered the United 27 States on March 7, 2019, and was issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on March 10, 2019. 28 ECF No. 8 at 2. On March 11, 2019, Petitioner was released on an Order of Release on 1 || Recognizance (“OREC”). ECF No. 8-1 at 17-18. A superseding NTA was filed on April 2 || 24, 2019. /d. at 7-10. On March 7, 2024, an Immigration Judge denied all claims for relief 3 ordered Petitioner removed to Guatemala. /d. at 12-15. On April 7, 2025, Petitioner 4 || was subsequently detained at a check-in appointment. ECF No. 8 at 2. 5 In their status update, Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner had previously been 6 || released on OREC. See ECF No. 8 at 2. Further, in their Return, Respondents acknowledge 7 || that “this Court’s prior decisions will control the result here if the Court adheres to its prior 8 ||decisions, as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of the Court’s 9 || decision” and that they “defer[] to the Court on the appropriate relief.” ECF No. 4 at 2-3. 10 In light of the Government’s statements, the Court will decline to engage in a full 11 |/analysis of the claims as well. Petitioner was released on OREC in March 2019. Many 12 || courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that a prior grant of release raises a liberty 13 |/interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner to due process rights under procedural 14 || due process. See, e.g., Totskii v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-1053-JES-JLB, 2026 WL 905331 15 ||(S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2026); Isoev v. Larose, No. 26-CV-1361-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 776308 16 }|(S.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2026). Accordingly, the Court adopts its reasoning and finds that due 17 || process requires release of Petitioner here. 18 Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. The Government is 19 || ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of 20 || his prior release that existed at the time he was re-detained. The Parties are ORDERED to 21 || file a Joint Status Report by July 31, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. 22 The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: July 24, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28