Nehemias Loarca Basilio v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Petitioner now 2 ||requests the Court to adjudicate the remaining prospective claim and “enter an order 3 providing that Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner unless they first provide
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas petition and a request for prospective injunctive relief filed by a petitioner who had been released from immigration detention after a bond hearing. The court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the request for prospective relief, finding the case not ripe.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. 1) and DENIES the Request for Prospective Relief (ECF No. 8).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner was no longer in custody, which is a prerequisite for habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Additionally, the request for prospective relief was deemed not ripe because the petitioner had been released. The dismissal is consistent with the law and the facts recited in the order. |
Denial of Request for Prospective Injunctive Relief Preventing Re-Detention (ECF No. 8)“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. 1) and DENIES the Request for Prospective Relief (ECF No. 8).” | agree with court The court applied the ripeness doctrine, citing Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cnty and Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Robinson, to determine that the case lacked a case or controversy because the petitioner was no longer detained. The court noted that if the petitioner is re-detained, he can raise the issue at that time. This is a standard and correct application of ripeness principles in the Ninth Circuit. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the ripeness doctrine and the statutory requirement for habeas jurisdiction. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for the ripeness analysis and correctly notes the lack of custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). 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 NEHEMIAS LOARCA BASILIO, Case No.: 26-CV-4720 JLS (BJW)
12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 15 Respondents. JURISDICTION, AND 16 (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR 17 PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PREVENTING RE- 18 DETENTION 19 (ECF Nos. 1, 8) 20 21 Presently before the Court is Nehemias Loarca Basilio’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1) and Request for Prospective Injunctive Relief Preventing Re- 23 Detention (“Request,” ECF No. 8). For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES 24 the Petition (ECF No. 1) and DENIES the Request (ECF No. 8). 25 Petitioner filed his Petition on August 18, 2026, seeking to enforce his rights under 26 Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). 27 Respondents provided Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on August 28 26, 2026, while the Petition was still pending. See Request at 2. Petitioner was granted 1 |}bond in the amount of $2,000.00, posted bond, and was released. Jd. Petitioner now 2 ||requests the Court to adjudicate the remaining prospective claim and “enter an order 3 providing that Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner unless they first provide 4 ||reasonable written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral adjudicator at 5 || which Respondents bear the burden.” Jd. at 2-3. 6 The Court rejects Petitioner’s request for relief because the case is not ripe for 7 review, and the Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction.' “For a case to be ripe, it must 8 || present issues that are ‘definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.’” Bishop Paiute 9 ||Tribe v. Inyo Cnty, 863 F.3d 1144, 1153 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 10 || Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rts. Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)). “If a 11 is not ripe for review, then there is no case or controversy, and the court lacks subject- 12 || matter jurisdiction.” Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 394 F.3d 665, 669 (9th Cir. 2005). 13 || Petitioner has been released from custody. Request at 2. If Petitioner is re-detained in 14 || violation of his due process rights, he can raise the issue at that time. See, e.g., Salazar v. 15 || Casey, No 25-CV-2784 JLS (VET), 2025 WL 3063629, at *3—5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025). 16 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. 1) and DENIES the 17 || Request for Prospective Relief (ECF No. 8). The Clerk of the Court SHALL close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: August 27, 2026 ft .
21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 || ——____—__- 27 Ih The Court also notes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because Petitioner is not 28 || “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (“The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States... .”).