Franklin Rodriguez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Cuban national detained by ICE after his initial release under the Cuban Humanitarian Parole Program. The court granted the petition, finding that the petitioner's re-detention without notice or a hearing violated his due process rights, and ordered his release on the same terms and conditions as his initial release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the due process principles established in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli to the context of immigration parole. The reliance on Saravia v. Sessions and Pinchi v. Noem provides specific support for the proposition that a non-citizen released from custody has a liberty interest that cannot be revoked without notice and an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the initial release was based on a finding that the individual was not a flight risk or danger. The facts recited (arrest without charges, detention without notice/hearing) support the conclusion that due process was violated. |
Order of Release“The Court ORDERS that Franklin Rodriguez (A# 240-093-884) be released on the same terms and conditions on which he was previously released in December 2022.” | agree with court The relief ordered is consistent with the legal finding that the detention was unlawful. Releasing the petitioner on the same terms as the initial release is a standard remedy in these circumstances, restoring the status quo ante the unlawful detention. |
The order itself: sound — The order is well-reasoned and cites appropriate Supreme Court precedent for the general principles of habeas corpus and due process. It also cites persuasive district court authority (Saravia, Pinchi) that directly addresses the specific issue of re-detention of released non-citizens. The application of these principles to the facts (detention without notice or hearing after an initial finding of no flight risk/danger) is logical and legally sound. The government's lack of opposition further supports the grant.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 FRANKLIN RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 26-cv-04107-BAS-DDL 14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 15 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 6) 16 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 17 Respondent. 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Franklin Rodriguez filed an Amended Habeas Petition pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming in part that he was improperly detained after he was paroled into 23 the United States. (ECF No. 6.) The Government filed a Return stating that, based on the 24 Court’s past decisions, it “does not oppose the petition” and defers to the Court as to the 25 appropriate relief. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 26 Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions 27 as he was previously released. 28 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 4 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 5 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 6 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 7 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 8 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 9 standing to pursue this Petition. 10 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 Petitioner, a citizen of Cuba, entered the United States in December 2022, seeking 12 asylum. (ECF No. 6.) He was released into the United States pursuant to the Cuban 13 Humanitarian Parole Program after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 14 determined he was not a flight risk or danger to the community. (ECF No. 8, Ex. 1.) 15 In June 2026, Petitioner was arrested for prostitution in Miami; however, no charges 16 were filed. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, Ex. 1.) ICE detained him without notice or an opportunity to 17 be heard on whether the charges were correct or warranted revocation of his parole. (Id.) 18 Petitioner seeks immediate release. (ECF No. 6.) 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard violates 21 Petitioner’s due process rights. Individuals released from custody, even where such release 22 is conditional, have a liberty interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 23 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre- 24 parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court 25 agrees with those courts that have held: 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from 7 rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 3 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or 4 has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 5 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 6 || Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176—77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 7 Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 8 ||(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 9 || government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 10 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 11 |}revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 12 || Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 13 Because ICE released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to 14 community in December 2022, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same 15 || conditions as he was initially released. If ICE believes circumstances have changed, it must 16 || provide notice of these changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner with an 17 |}opportunity to be heard promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court 18 || GRANTS the Amended Petition. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 21 The Court ORDERS that Franklin Rodriguez (A# 240-093-884) be released on the same terms and conditions on which he was previously released in 22 December 2022. 23 24 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Duhark 27 ||DATED: August 24, 2026 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 28 United States District Court □□□