Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CESPRY JOALBO RODRIGUEZ PINZON, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04374-RBM-AHG 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 11 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 12 TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General of the United States, et al., 13 [Doc. 6] Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner Cespry Joalbo Rodriguez Pinzon’s (“Petitioner”) 16 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 17 (Doc. 6.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS in part the Petition. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection in 20 2022. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner has resided with his family in Florida ever since. (Id.) On June 21 27, 2026, Petitioner “was on his way to work in a taxi when he was pulled over by a black 22 and white police car.” (Id.) The officers arrested Petitioner, who was sometime thereafter 23 transferred to Imperial Regional Detention Facility, where he remains today. (Id.) 24 Petitioner was never shown a warrant for his arrest, and he was never told why he was 25 detained. (Id. (citing Doc. 6-1 [Decl. of Petitioner] ¶ 5).) 26 On July 30, 2026, Petitioner, then proceeding pro se, filed his original petition. 27 (Doc. 1.) The Court referred the petition to Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., for an 28 1 evaluation of whether Petitioner was eligible for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 2.) On 2 August 14, 2026, Petitioner, now represented by Federal Defenders, filed the operative 3 Petition. (Doc. 6.) Respondents filed their response on August 21, 2026. (Doc. 7.) 4 Petitioner filed his reply on August 27, 2026. (Doc. 8.) 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 7 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 8 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 9 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 10 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 11 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 12 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 13 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 14 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 Petitioner argues that his warrantless arrest violates 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. 17 § 287.3, compelling his immediate release. (Doc. 6 at 3–11; Doc. 8 at 2–3.) Respondents 18 concede that they “do not have sufficient information as to whether [ ] an administrative 19 warrant was issued to Petitioner,” and therefore “do not oppose an order from this Court 20 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).” (Doc. 7 at 1–2.) The 21 Court finds that, although Petitioner is not entitled to immediate release, he is “entitled to 22 an initial custody determination and, if denied release, a bond hearing before an 23 Immigration Judge to review that initial custody determination.” Garcia De Melo v. 24 Stamper, No. 1:26-cv-00152-JAW, 2026 WL 925672, at *3 (D. Me. Apr. 6, 2026). 25 “Discretionary detention under § 1226(a) requires a warrant.” Id. at *5 (citing 26 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 302 (2018) (“But [section 1226(a)] authorizes 27 detention only ‘[o]n a warrant issued’ by the Attorney General.”)). And “when arrests are 28 made without a warrant, a custody determination must ordinarily be made within 48 hours, 1 accompanied by a notice to appear, and in the case of continued custody a warrant will be 2 issued post hoc.” Makuiza v. Wesling, 826 F. Supp. 3d 176, 180 (D. Me. 2026) (citing 3 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d)). Because Respondents concede that they cannot demonstrate that an 4 administrative warrant was issued to Petitioner, the Court finds that Respondents failed to 5 adequately comply with the warrant requirement. Still, Petitioner is still not entitled to 6 immediate release. As another court reasoned: 7 . . . [T]he Court does not agree that this conclusion requires [the petitioner’s] immediate release. Instead, the Court concludes that the 48-hour clock for 8 Respondents to conduct an initial custody determination begins at the date and 9 time of this order. Unlike in Makuiza, in which the Government initially detained the noncitizen pursuant to § 1226(a) but “neglected to” “justify[ ] its 10 arrest decision[ ],” id. at *3-4, 11, in this case, Respondents do not concede 11 [petitioner] is subject to § 1226(a) but rather maintain, consistent with controlling agency precedent, he is subject to mandatory detention under 12 § 1225(b)(2), which does not require an initial custody determination or 13 warrant. Moreover, to retroactively apply the Court’s § 1226(a) determination in this matter would place Respondents in the untenable position in future 14 cases presenting similar circumstances, in which Respondents must decide 15 whether to deliberately violate controlling agency precedent in anticipation of a possible objection a detainee may or may not raise in a future habeas petition 16 not yet before this Court, and then further guess how this Court might rule. 17 Rather, in this case, given that Respondents have maintained since his arrest 18 that [petitioner] is that subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), the forty-eight-hour custody determination clock begins to run at the time of this 19 Court’s determination that [petitioner] is subject to § 1226(a). Accordingly, 20 the Court will order Respondents to conduct an initial custody determination of [petitioner] pursuant to § 1226(a), at which point they may either release 21 him or continue to detain him. If Respondents continue his detention, they 22 must obtain an authorizing warrant and, [ ], later provide [petitioner] a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. 23 24 Garcia De Melo, 2026 WL 925672, at *5. 25 The Court finds the reasoning of Garcia De Melo persuasive and adopts it here. The 26 Court thus DENIES the Petition to the extent it seeks immediate release. The Court instead 27 finds that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. Accord Gonzalez-Ramos v. Mullin, 28 Case No.: 26-CV-3159 JLS (GC), 2026 WL 1865899, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2026); | || Lopez-Perez v. Johnson, No. 1:26-cv-03083 JLT SAB (HC), 2026 WL 1506818, at *2 2 ||(E.D. Cal. May 29, 2026); Marcelino v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04098-RBM-SBC, 3 |}2026 WL 2210910, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2026). 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 6) is GRANTED in part. The Petition 6 ||is DENIED to the extent it seeks immediate release. The Court ORDERS that within 48 7 ||hours of the issuance of this Order, Respondents shall conduct an initial custody 8 || determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which point they may (1) release Petitioner 9 || or (2) continue his detention if deemed appropriate. 10 If Petitioner is not released, and no arrest warrant has been issued, Respondents shall 11 ||}immediately seek an arrest warrant. If the warrant is not granted, Respondents shall 12 || release Petitioner. If the warrant is granted, the Government shall provide Petitioner with 13 |} an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the initial custody 14 || determination unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. At any such bond hearing, the 15 |/noncitizen shall bear the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, 16 || that he is not a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 17 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 18 Respondents shall file a status report attesting to their compliance with the 19 ||requirements above, including the outcome of the custody determination and, if 20 || appropriate, the bond hearing, on or before September 18, 2026. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||DATE: August 27, 2026 Bitrate iter: A ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28