Damion Clarke v. Markwayne Mullin
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitione
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Damion Clarke filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing his immigration detention was arbitrarily prolonged and he was improperly denied a bond hearing. The Court granted the petition, ordering an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge where the Government bears the burden of proof.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.“Because the Government concedes that a bond hearing is appropriate, the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.” | agree with court The court's decision is procedurally sound because it relies on the Government's express concession that the detention is arbitrarily prolonged and that a bond hearing is appropriate. In federal habeas proceedings, a respondent's concession of the merits often allows the court to grant relief without extensive independent analysis, provided the court has jurisdiction and the petitioner has standing, both of which the court established. The specific terms of the writ (burden of proof on the government) align with the Ninth Circuit's precedent in *Rodriguez v. Marin* regarding due process in prolonged immigration detention. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and relies heavily on the Government's concession. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for habeas jurisdiction and due process in immigration detention, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent (*Rodriguez v. Marin*) and Supreme Court precedent (*Zadvydas*, *Hamdi*). The reasoning is sufficient to support the grant of the writ given the concession, and the specific terms of the order (burden of proof) are consistent with the cited authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAMION CLARKE, Case No. 26-cv-03511-BAS-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 15) 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner Damion Clarke filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming his immigration detention has been arbitrarily and 21 unreasonably prolonged and that he was improperly denied a bond hearing. (ECF No. 15.) 22 The Government “concedes this Court should order that Petitioner receive an 23 individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.” (ECF No. 18.) Because the 24 Government concedes that a bond hearing is appropriate, the Court GRANTS the Petition 25 and orders a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 28 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 1 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 2 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 3 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 4 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 5 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 6 has standing to pursue this Petition. 7 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. (ECF 9 No. 15.) On October 7, 2025, after serving his criminal sentence, he was turned over to the 10 custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Id.) On November 21, 2025, 11 an Immigration Judge held a hearing finding: (1) Petitioner was ineligible for bond under 12 § 1226(c), and (2) Petitioner had failed to meet his burden to prove he was not a danger to 13 the community. (ECF No. 15.) Petitioner argues, because he has faced arbitrary and 14 unreasonably prolonged detention, he is entitled to a bond hearing where the Government 15 has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he would be a danger to the 16 community or a risk of flight if released. (Id.) The Government does not oppose. (ECF No. 17 18.) 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 The Court agrees that immigration detention without a bond hearing can be deemed 20 arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and thus a violation of the detainee’s due process 21 rights. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We have grave 22 doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is 23 constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the 24 government’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.”). The Government 25 agrees that Petitioner has been detained for an arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged 26 period of time. (ECF No. 18.) Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it 27 requests that a bond hearing be held before an Immigration Judge. 28 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Damion 4 Clarke (A# 232-395-247). At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses 5 a danger to the community or a risk of flight if released on bond. 6 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || DATED: September 3, 2026 ~ 10 ly Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 11 United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48