Ronald Jilberto Ramirez Grijalva v. Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which sought release or a bond hearing after an Immigration Judge denied bond based on flight risk. The court denied the petition, finding it duplicative of a prior petition in which the petitioner had already been granted a bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petition.” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the petition is legally sound. The petitioner had already received the specific relief sought (a bond hearing) in a prior action, and the current petition raises identical grounds without demonstrating new cause or prejudice. Furthermore, the petition is arguably not ripe because the petitioner has already appealed the Immigration Judge's bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is the proper administrative avenue for challenging that specific order. The court correctly applied the successive petition doctrine. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the petition as successive and duplicative. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities regarding the requirements for successive petitions (cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice). It also notes the respondent's argument regarding ripeness (pending BIA appeal), which is a valid procedural bar, although the court relies primarily on the duplicative nature of the petition. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a pro se, duplicative petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD JILBERTO RAMIREZ Case No.: 26cv4459-LL-DDL GRIJALVA, 12 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Petitioner, 13 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 JEREMY CASEY, 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Ronald Jilberto Ramirez Grijalva’s second Petition for 20 a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed his first 21 Petition on May 8, 2026. See Gilberto Ramirez v. Casey, No. 26-cv-02916-LL-AHG, ECF 22 No. 1 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2026). On May 28, 2026, the Court ordered Respondent to provide 23 Petitioner with a bond hearing. Id. at ECF No. 5 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2026). According to 24 Respondent, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) on June 25 11, 2026 and that the IJ denied Petitioner’s bond based on flight risk. ECF No. 4-1 at 1. On 26 July 23, 2026, Petitioner appealed the IJ’s order denying bond to the Board of Immigration 27 Appeals (“BIA”). Id. at 5. 28 1 On August 4, 2026, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the current Petition. ECF No. 2 || 1. Despite having received a bond hearing pursuant to this Court’s May 28, 2026 Order, 3 || Petitioner claims that he has been detained without a bond hearing and that his continued 4 || detention violated the Fifth Amendment. /d. at 4. Petitioner seeks his immediate release or 5 ||a bond hearing. /d. at 8. 6 “[A] successive petition that raises identical grounds for relief as a prior petition 7 ||must be dismissed unless the petitioner can show (1) cause for bringing a successive 8 || petition and that prejudice would result or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice 9 || would result from failure to entertain the claim.” Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 10 |} 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991); Sanders v. 11 || United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963)). The government bears the burden of pleading abuse 12 || of the writ. McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 477. 13 Respondent contends that the second Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner 14 || was previously granted the relief he sought and has raised nearly identical claims for relief. 15 || ECF No. 4 at 3. In addition, Respondents argue that Petitioner’s second Petition is not ripe 16 || for review because Petitioner appealed the IJ’s order denying bond to the BIA. □□□ 17 The Court finds that Petitioner’s second Petition is largely duplicative of his prior 18 || petition and does not show that he is entitled to the requested relief. See e.g., Fierros 19 || Pedroza v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., No. 26-cv-00892 BJC-VET, ECF 20 || No. 6 (dismissing Petitioner’s successive petition because Petitioner was granted the relief 21 sought in first petition and the second petition raised identical grounds for relief.). 22 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall close this 23 || matter. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 25, 2026 NO 26 QF | 27 Honorable Linda Lopez 38 United States District Judge