Eric Marcado-Julio v. Todd Blanche, U.S. Attorney General, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Venezuelan national detained by Border Patrol, who argued his detention had become unduly prolonged in violation of due process. The court denied the petition, finding that the detention had not yet become unreasonably prolonged under a six-factor balancing test.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied“Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied a recognized six-factor balancing test for prolonged detention claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner had been detained for less than two months, which the court correctly identified as the most important factor weighing against a finding of undue prolongation. The other factors were either neutral or weighed in the petitioner's favor (conditions of confinement), but the brevity of the detention period was dispositive. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Motion to Appoint Counsel denied as moot“Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 2) ... are DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was denied, the ancillary motion for counsel became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order denied as moot“Petitioner’s ... Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3) are DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was denied, the ancillary motion for a TRO became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (28 U.S.C. § 2241) and applies a well-established multi-factor test from district court precedent. It accurately assesses the facts in the record, noting the short duration of detention (less than two months) as the primary factor against the petitioner. The reasoning is logical and the conclusion follows from the application of the factors to the specific facts.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERIC MARCADO-JULIO, Case No.: 26-cv-4094-RSH-GC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 12 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney General, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 18 On July 15, 2026, petitioner Eric Marcado-Julio, proceeding pro se, filed a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. On 20 July 23, 2026, Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 6. 21 Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may 22 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 23 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the 24 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 25 treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 26 The record reflects that Petitioner, a citizen of Venezuela, was arrested on June 18, 27 2026 by Border Patrol at the San Clemente Border Patrol Station. ECF No. 6-1 at 8. He 28 was scheduled for a master hearing before the immigration court on July 23, 2026. ECF 1 No. 6-1 at 13–14. The Court construes the Petition as contending that Petitioner’s detention 2 has become unduly prolonged in violation of due process. Id. 3 In determining whether Petitioner’s detention has become prolonged, the Court 4 applies a six-factor balancing test used by some district courts. See Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 5 F. Supp. 3d 768, 773–74 (S.D. Cal. 2020); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 6 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019). That test considers: (1) the total length of detention to date; (2) 7 the likely duration of future detention; (3) conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal 8 proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the 9 government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order 10 of removal. See Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 773–74. Of these, the “most important factor” 11 is the length of detention. Id. at 774. 12 Here, Petitioner has been detained since June 18, 2026, a period of less than two 13 months. The relatively brief duration of his detention weighs against finding that it has 14 become unreasonably prolonged. Although a master calendar hearing was scheduled for 15 July 23, 2026, the present record does not reflect the outcome of that hearing or otherwise 16 permit the Court to reliably estimate the likely duration of Petitioner’s future detention. 17 The second factor is therefore neutral. The record also does not attribute any delay to either 18 Party. Accordingly, the fourth and fifth factors are neutral. 19 Courts in this district have found that conditions at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, 20 where Petitioner is detained, are “indistinguishable from penal confinement.” Kydyrali, 21 499 F. Supp. 3d at 773; Hoyos Amado v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 25-cv-2687-LL-DDL, 22 2025 WL 3079052, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). This factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor. 23 Finally, although Petitioner contends that he is likely to obtain relief in immigration court, 24 ECF No. 1 at 2, the present record does not permit the Court to assess the probable outcome 25 of those proceedings. The sixth factor is therefore neutral. 26 Considering Petitioner's length of detention to date in connection with the other 27 applicable factors, the Court determines that Petitioner's detention has not yet 28 become unduly prolonged in violation of his due process rights. For the foregoing reasons, 1 || Petitioner has not established that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 2 ||laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Accordingly, the Petition 3 |}is DENIED. Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 2) and Motion for 4 || Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court 5 directed to close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 27, 2026 Jekut C / ‘ 9 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28