Roberto Larreinaga Chavez v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a non-citizen who was re-detained by ICE after having been previously released to a family sponsor while pursuing an asylum claim. The court granted the petition, finding that the re-detention violated due process because the government failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances, and ordered the petitioner's release on the same terms as his initial release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the petitioner, having been previously released, possesses a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The reliance on *Morrissey* and *Gagnon* to establish this interest is legally sound. The court's application of the *Saravia* standard—that re-detention requires evidence of materially changed circumstances (danger, flight risk, or final order of removal)—is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the due process rights of non-citizens who have been released. Since the government conceded it did not oppose the petition and the record indicates no changed circumstances, the grant of the writ follows logically from the law and the facts recited. |
Ordering release on the same terms and conditions as previously released“The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Roberto Larreinaga Chavez (A# 246-021-098) be released on the same terms and conditions as he was ordered released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement in October 2022.” | agree with court This is the appropriate remedial action. Since the re-detention was found to be a violation of due process, restoring the status quo ante (the prior release conditions) is the correct remedy. The court correctly notes that if the government believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice and a hearing, but in the absence of such a showing, the petitioner must be released. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly distinguishes the petitioner's situation from the *Maldonado* class (which might have triggered a different statutory bond analysis under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) and instead relies on the stronger, more universally applicable Due Process Clause argument. The court correctly applies the *Morrissey/Gagnon* line of cases to establish a liberty interest in continued liberty for a previously released non-citizen. The reliance on *Saravia* and *Pinchi* provides the specific framework for what the government must show to justify re-detention (materially changed circumstances). The government's concession and the lack of evidence of changed circumstances make the grant of the writ the only logical outcome. The reasoning is clear, cites appropriate authority, and addresses the specific facts of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO LARREINAGA CHAVEZ, Case No. 26-cv-03656-BAS-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 8) 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Roberto Larreinaga Chavez filed an Amended Habeas Petition pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained without bond. (Am. Pet., ECF 20 No. 8.) The Government filed a Return stating that, although it believes Petitioner is subject 21 to mandatory detention, based on the Court’s past decisions, it “does not oppose the 22 petition” and defers to the Court as to the appropriate relief. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons 23 stated below, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be 24 released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 27 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 28 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 1 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 2 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 3 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 4 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 5 standing to pursue this Petition. 6 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States around October 15, 2022, 8 as an unaccompanied minor. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 20.) Although Petitioner claims he entered the 9 United States without inspection, he then states that as an unaccompanied minor, he was 10 transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement where he was released to family in 11 Florida. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 20.) He then applied for asylum on July 21, 2023. (Id. ¶ 21.) He has 12 been employed as an electrician, has paid taxes, and has remained law-abiding. (Id. ¶ 22.) 13 On April 24, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) re-detained 14 Petitioner on his way to work without notice or an opportunity to be heard. (Am. Pet. ¶ 23.) 15 Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing. (Id. at p. 13.) 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 Although both Petitioner and the Government seem to believe Petitioner is a member 18 of the Maldonado class and thus entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), 19 that does not appear to be the case. See Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 20 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (certifying a class of all noncitizens who entered without inspection 21 and were not apprehended upon arrival). It appears that Petitioner was apprehended upon 22 arrival, was turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and was then released to a 23 family sponsor while he pursued his asylum claim. (Am. Pet. Ex. 1.) 24 However, Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard and 25 without noticeably changed circumstances violates Petitioner’s due process rights. 26 Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a liberty 27 interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) 28 (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1 ||411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those courts that 2 || have held: 3 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from 4 rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 5 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or 6 has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 7 rearrest, he 1s entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 8 || Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176-77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 9 Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 10 ||(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 11 || government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 12 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 13 ||revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 14 || Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 15 Because Petitioner was released pending pursuit of his asylum claim and because 16 || there is no evidence that circumstances have changed since then, Petitioner is entitled to 17 ||remain released on the same conditions as he was initially released. If ICE believes 18 circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of these changed circumstances to 19 Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard promptly before an 20 Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 23 The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Roberto Larreinaga Chavez (A# 246-021-098) be released on the same terms and conditions as he was ordered released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement in October 2022. 25 26 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 DATED: July 27, 2026 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge _2._ United States District Court