Franklin Javier Rivera Gutierrez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Zadv
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an asylum seeker detained by ICE after his order of removal became final. The court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and that the short duration of his detention is presumptively reasonable.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Hence, the Court DENIES the Petition.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) mandates detention for non-citizens with a final order of removal. The court also correctly applies the framework from Zadvydas v. Davis, noting that the petitioner has only been detained for approximately 20 days, which falls well within the period considered presumptively reasonable (typically six months) before a heightened scrutiny is required. The petitioner's argument regarding the lack of an individualized determination is not applicable to the mandatory detention phase under § 1231(a) prior to the expiration of the removal period. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the statutory mandate of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and distinguishes the petitioner's situation from the indefinite detention scenario addressed in Zadvydas. The court accurately notes that the petitioner's detention is only about 20 days, which is presumptively reasonable and does not trigger the constitutional concerns raised in Zadvydas. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANKLIN JAVIER RIVERA Case No. 26-cv-04031-BAS-GC GUTIERREZ, 12 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Petitioner, 13 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. (ECF No. 1) 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 15 CENTER, 16 Respondent. 17 19 Petitioner Franklin Javier Rivera Gutierrez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he has been detained “without sufficient legal 21 justification,” which violates due process. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responds that 22 Petitioner is mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). (ECF No. 9.) The Court agrees 23 and DENIES the Petition. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 26 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 27 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 28 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 1 || she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 2 || applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 3 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 4 ||has standing to pursue this Petition. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador claiming asylum. (ECF No. 1.) On 7 || February 8, 2026, local law enforcement arrested him and turned him over to Immigration 8 |}and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. V/d.) On July 17, 2026, an Immigration Judge 9 || denied Petitioner’s asylum claim and ordered him removed to El Salvador. (ECF No. 9-2.) 10 || Petitioner waived his appeal, so his order of removal became final on that date. (/d.) 11 || Petitioner argues he has been detained without an individualized determination of flight 12 or danger and requests immediate release from ICE custody. (ECF No. 1.) 13 ANALYSIS 14 Once an order of removal becomes final, it is mandatory that the individual be 15 ||detained in ICE custody. 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), 16 ||addressed individuals who were detained indefinitely because their country of origin 17 ||refused to accept deportees. There has been no such allegation here, and Petitioner has only 18 || been ordered removed for about 20 days. This detention is presumptively reasonable under 19 || Zadvydas. 20 CONCLUSION 21 Petitioner is mandatorily detained, and the period of detention is presumptively 22 ||reasonable. Hence, the Court DENIES the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 DATED: August 7, 2026 yatta Bahar 26 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 44 United States District Court