Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO FUENTES SANCHEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03927-RBM-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLINS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland 15 [Doc. 1] Security, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Armando Fuentes Sanchez’s (“Petitioner”) 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 21 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in or 24 around 2002. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2, 20.) On June 5, 2026, Petitioner was detained by immigration 25 authorities and has remained detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center ever since. (Id. 26 ¶¶ 2, 6.) Petitioner filed the instant Petition on July 8, 2026. (See id. ¶¶ 5–12, 28.) Pursuant 27 to this Court’s Order (see Doc. 2), Respondents filed a Response to the Petition on July 16, 28 2026. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner has not filed an optional reply brief as of the date of this Order. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 4 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 5 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 6 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 7 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 8 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 9 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 10 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Petitioner claims he is unlawfully detained in violation of Immigration and 13 Nationality Act and the declaratory judgment issued in Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 14 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 15 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (See Doc. 1 16 ¶¶ 1–12, 27–32.) Respondents assert that Petitioner “appears to be a member of the Bond 17 Eligible Class in Maldonado Bautista” and “do not oppose an order from this Court 18 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (Doc. 4 at 2.) 19 In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, and the Court’s previous orders concerning 20 similarly situated petitioners, the Court finds that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a). 21 See N.A. v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-03028-RBM-DEB, 2025 WL 3512412, at *5 (S.D. Cal. 22 Dec. 8, 2025) (finding a petitioner who was not apprehended upon arrival and resided in 23 the United States for 17 years was subject to § 1226’s discretionary detention procedures 24 and entitled to a bond hearing). While Petitioner seeks his release (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 11–12), 25 the Court finds it appropriate to hold a bond hearing under § 1226(a) to determine the 26 conditions of his potential release. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled 27 to a bond hearing. See N.A., 2025 WL 3512412, at *5. 28 l IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. To 3 extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody, the Petition is DENIED. 4 || Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS as follows: 5 1. The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized 6 bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 7 this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. 8 2. At the bond hearing, the non-citizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a 9 preponderance of the evidence, that they are not a danger to the community or a 10 flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 11 3. The Government SHALL NOT deny the noncitizen’s bond on the basis that 8 12 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. 13 4. If the noncitizen does not request a continuance, and no hearing occurs within 14 fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, the noncitizen shall be released from 15 Respondents’ custody. 16 5. The Government SHALL FILE a status report on or before August 18, 2026 17 indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing and the results 18 of such hearing. 19 6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||DATE: July 29, 2026 73 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28