Manuel Daniel Bernal Lopez v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Respondents “do not oppose an ord
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition from a non-citizen detained after a traffic stop, finding that the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock requires such individuals to be processed under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than § 1225. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the government to provide an individualized bond hearing within 14 days, but denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part“Therefore, the Petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock) which holds that unadmitted non-citizens in the interior are subject to § 1226. Since the respondents did not oppose the bond hearing and acknowledged prior district orders, granting the petition to compel a hearing is consistent with the law and the record. |
Order directing individualized bond hearing“ORDERS the Government to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days, unless Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance.” | agree with court Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), non-citizens are entitled to a bond hearing. The court correctly cited Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland for the proposition that the burden is on the non-citizen to show they are not a danger or flight risk. The 14-day timeframe is a reasonable procedural directive. |
Petition denied in part regarding immediate release“The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody.” | agree with court Habeas corpus is a remedy to test the legality of detention, not a mechanism for immediate release without a hearing. Since the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing but has not yet had one, denying immediate release is procedurally correct; the petitioner must first prevail at the bond hearing to obtain release. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable statute (§ 1226 vs § 1225) based on the specific factual predicate (interior presence) and the controlling circuit precedent. It properly distinguishes between the right to a hearing and the right to immediate release. The reliance on Rodriguez Diaz for the burden of proof is accurate. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural order.
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 MANUEL DANIEL BERNAL LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-CV-4105 JLS (SBC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 1) 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Manuel Daniel Bernal Lopez’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 20 is Respondents’ Return to Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 6). 21 Petitioner did not file at traverse. See generally Docket. 22 Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2023 and alleges that he has been 23 detained since June 2026, when he was arrested after a traffic stop. Pet. ¶¶ 2–3. The Ninth 24 Circuit held that unadmitted non-citizens present in the interior of the United States are 25 subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and are not subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Rodriguez Vazquez v. 26 Bostock, No. 25-6842, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Respondents “acknowledge 27 the prior orders from this District directing bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 28 in similar cases.” Ret. at 2. Respondents “do not oppose an order from this Court directing 1 bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Jd. Therefore, the Petition 2 ||(ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ 5 ||of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and ORDERS the Government to provide Petitioner with 6 || an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days, unless 7 || Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance. Bond SHALL NOT be denied on the 8 || basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. The non-citizen bears the 9 || burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are not a danger to 10 community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th 11 |} Cir. 2022). The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent that Petitioner requests 12 || 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 6, 2026 □ □□ 18 ja Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28