Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FRANKLIN DAVID LICONA Case No.: 3:26-cv-04197-RBM-BJW CANALES, 11 ORDER GRANTING PETITION Petitioner, 12 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 13 [Doc. 1] SIXTO MARRERO, Warden of Imperial 14 Regional Detention Facility, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Franklin David Licona Canales’s 19 (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor from Honduras in 23 or around October 2022. (Doc. 1 at 11.) Petitioner was detained by immigration authorities 24 for about one month before being released to his uncle in Maryland, where he remained 25 while his immigration case was pending. (Id.) Petitioner continued to live in the United 26 States after his release. (Id.) During that time, Petitioner “established strong ties to [his] 27 community through [his] family, . . . employment, and . . . residence.” (Id.) Petitioner has 28 “no criminal convictions or criminal history.” (Id.) 1 On June 29, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs 2 Enforcement (“ICE”) while he was returning home from work in Maryland. (Id.) 3 Petitioner was subsequently transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, where 4 he remains detained. (Id.) 5 On July 22, 2026, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing the 6 instant Petition. (Doc. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s Order (see Doc. 2), Respondents filed 7 a Response to the Petition. (Doc. 4.) Although Petitioner was allowed to file an optional 8 reply brief on or before August 18, 2026 (see Doc. 2 at 2), the Court does not require any 9 additional briefing to adjudicate the Petition. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 12 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 13 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 14 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 15 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 16 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 17 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 18 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 19 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Petitioner claims his immigration detention without a bond hearing violates the 22 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and the Fifth Amendment’s Due 23 Process Clause. (Doc. 1 at 8.) Respondents argue “that Petitioner is subject to mandatory 24 detention under § 1225(b)(2),” but “do[ ] not oppose the petition and defer[ ] to the Court 25 on the appropriate relief.” (Doc. 4 at 1–2.) 26 After the Petition was fully briefed, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Rodriguez 27 Vazquez v. Bostock,—F. 4th—, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). There, the 28 Ninth Circuit rejected Respondents’ argument, concluding that noncitizens “present 1 without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to 2 the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” Id. at *3. Because there is no dispute 3 that Petitioner was detained in the interior of the United States after having resided here 4 for over three years (see Doc. 1 at 8, 11), the discretionary detention procedures of 5 § 1226(a) govern Petitioner’s detention. 6 Petitioner also states that he was previously released from immigration detention as 7 an unaccompanied minor, lived in the United States for over three years, was employed, 8 filed taxes, and has no criminal history. (Doc. 1 at 11.) This Court has repeatedly held that 9 a prior grant of release raises a liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner 10 to procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See 11 Faizyan v. Casey, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02884-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3208844, at *7 (S.D. 12 Cal. Nov. 17, 2025) (applying the due process inquiry set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 13 424 U.S. 319 (1976) and finding the Government’s “revocation of [a petitioner’s] 14 conditional parole without an opportunity to be heard deprived [p]etitioner of his due 15 process rights.”); Orellana-Batres v. Casey, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00801-RBM-MSB, 2026 16 WL 1075655, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) (finding a petitioner who entered the United 17 States as an unaccompanied minor “maintain[ed] a protected liberty interest in remaining 18 free from detention” and his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due 19 process). The Court therefore adopts its reasoning in those cases and applies it here. For 20 those same reasons, Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated his 21 due process rights and rendered his detention unlawful. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly: 24 1. The Government is ORDERED to immediately release the noncitizen from 25 custody, subject to his preexisting reporting requirements. 26 2. The Court ORDERS that, prior to any re-detention, the noncitizen shall receive 27 notice and a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 28 to determine whether detention is warranted. 1 3. The noncitizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the 2 evidence, that he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez 3 Diaz v. Garland, 53 F Ath 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 4 4. Atany such hearing, if the immigration judge determines that bond is appropriate, 5 the immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and the 6 noncitizen’s ability to pay.! 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: August 17, 2026 10 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || 26 Il See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A bond determination 27 process that does not include consideration of financial circumstances and alternative release conditions Is unlikely to result in a bond amount that is reasonably related to the government’s legitimate interests.’’).