Jaime Castillo Baltazar v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1226(a)” in light of the r
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen alleging that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Due Process Clause and statutory authority. The court granted the petition and ordered the government to provide an individualized bond hearing by September 1, 2026, with specific procedural requirements regarding the burden of proof and conditions of release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.” | agree with court The court granted the petition based on the Respondents' stipulation that they do not oppose a bond hearing in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. The order recites that the Respondents explicitly agreed to the relief requested, making the grant of the petition a logical consequence of the parties' positions and the cited controlling authority. |
Ordering Respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing by September 1, 2026“Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing no later than September 1, 2026.” | agree with court The order sets a specific deadline for the hearing, which is a reasonable exercise of the court's equitable powers to ensure the prompt resolution of the habeas claim, particularly given the Respondents' agreement to the relief. |
Setting the burden of proof for the government at clear and convincing evidence“At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk, while further specifying that concerns about interrupting court schedules is not a ground to deny bond.” | agree with court The court imposes a specific evidentiary standard and excludes a specific ground for denial. While the order does not explicitly cite the statutory provision for this standard, it aligns with the procedural protections typically required in immigration bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the due process concerns raised in the petition. |
Prohibiting ICE from invoking automatic stay provisions to defeat the IJ's bond determination“Prohibit ICE from invoking the automatic stay provisions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(4)(2) to defeat the IJ’s bond determination.” | agree with court The court issues a specific injunction regarding the administrative stay of the bond decision. This is a common provision in habeas orders to ensure the effectiveness of the court's order and prevent the government from circumventing the relief through administrative delay. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a short, procedural disposition that grants the petition based on the Respondents' stipulation and the cited Ninth Circuit authority. It does not engage in detailed legal analysis or address potential counterarguments, but it correctly identifies the relevant statutory and case law authorities that support the relief. The specific conditions of the order (burden of proof, deadline, prohibition on automatic stay) are standard and appropriate for this type of habeas relief.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME CASTILLO BALTAZAR, Case No.: 26-cv-3950-BJC-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al, 15 Respondents. 16 17 On July 9, 2026, Petitioner Jaime Castillo Baltazar, proceeding pro se, filed a 18 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On July 19 13, 2026, the Court appointed the San Diego Office of Federal Defenders to represent 20 Petitioner and set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 2. On August 10, 2026, Petitioner, through 21 counsel, filed an Amended Petition, asserting his continued detention without a bond 22 hearing exceeds statutory authority and violates the due process clause of the United States 23 Constitution. ECF No. 10 at 3. Petitioner requests that this Court assume jurisdiction over 24 the matter, grant the Petition and order Respondents to schedule a bond hearing before an 25 immigration judge. Id. 26 Respondents filed a Return to the Petition on August 17, 2026, in which they state 27 that they “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant 28 1 ||to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” in light of the recent Ninth Circuit holding in Rodriguez Vazquez v. 2 || Bostock, No. 25-6842, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). ECF No. 3 || 11 at 2. 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 5 ||Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing no later than 6 September 1, 2026. 7 (a) At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden of 8 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a 9 danger or flight risk, while further specifying that concerns about 10 interrupting court schedules is not a ground to deny bond. 11 (b) The IJ shall consider alternative conditions of release and 12 Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond is 13 appropriate. 14 (c) Respondents shall make a complete record of the bond hearing 15 available to Petitioner and his counsel. 16 (d) Prohibit ICE from invoking the automatic stay provisions under 8 C.F.R. 17 § 1003.19(4)(2) to defeat the IJ’s bond determination. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: August 18, 2026 20 22 73 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28