Jose Samuel Pimentel Lopez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Clerk of Court SHAL
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an unadmitted non-citizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court granted the petition in part, ordering the government to provide an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days, and denied the petition in part to the extent it sought immediate release from custody.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant in part of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ordering an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen days.“Therefore, the Petition (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's recent holding in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock that unadmitted non-citizens in the interior are subject to § 1226, not § 1225. Since the government does not oppose a bond hearing under § 1226(a), and the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release without a hearing, granting the petition in part to compel the hearing is the appropriate procedural step. |
Denial in part of the Petition to the extent it requests immediate release from custody.“The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody.” | agree with court Habeas relief in this context typically requires a showing that detention is unlawful. While the statutory basis for detention was corrected to § 1226, the petitioner must still demonstrate eligibility for release (i.e., not a danger or flight risk) at a hearing. Immediate release without that hearing is not warranted by the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable statutory provision based on recent Ninth Circuit precedent and orders the appropriate procedural remedy (a bond hearing) rather than immediate release. It properly allocates the burden of proof for the hearing. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE SAMUEL PIMENTEL LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-CV-3756 JLS (JLB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 (ECF No. 6) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Jose Samuel Pimentel Lopez’s Amended Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 6). Also before the 20 Court is Respondents’ Return to Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 8). 21 Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2004 and alleges that he has been 22 detained since March 14, 2026, when he was arrested on his way to work. Pet. at 2. The 23 Ninth Circuit held that unadmitted non-citizens present in the interior of the United States 24 are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and are not subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Rodriguez Vazquez 25 v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Respondents acknowledge 26 that Petitioner “is an unadmitted alien present in the interior of the United States” and 27 therefore “is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Ret. at 1. Respondents do 28 | oppose an order directing a bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. 2 || Therefore, the Petition (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART.! 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Amended 5 || Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 6) and ORDERS the Government to provide 6 || Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen 7 days, unless Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance. Bond SHALL NOT 8 || be denied on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. The non- 9 || citizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they 10 |/are not a danger to the community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 11 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that 12 || Petitioner requests to be released from custody. 13 The Parties SHALL FILE a status report informing the Court of the outcome of the 14 ||hearing or informing the Court of Petitioner’s request for a continuance by August 28, 15 2026. The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: August 4, 2026 □□ 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || ——____—__- 27 Ih The Court denies the Petition insofar as Petitioner requests release based on the lack of an administrative 28 39.2036). Gonzalez-Ramos v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-3159 JLS (GC), 2026 WL 1865899 (S.D. Cal. June