Blanca Godinez Domingo v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner 28 was released on parole and thus “do not oppose the petition and defer to the Court on the 1 appropri
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a Guatemalan national detained after her parole was revoked without notice or a hearing. The court granted the petition, ordered the petitioner's immediate release subject to existing parole conditions, and mandated specific due process protections for any future re-detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering immediate release from custody.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 9), and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody subject to the conditions of her preexisting parole.” | agree with court The court relied on recent district court precedents (Noori, Tran, Antonio) to determine that the revocation of parole without notice or a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Given the respondents' non-opposition and the cited authority, the decision to grant release follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
Ordering specific due process protections (notice, hearing, burden of proof) prior to any re-detention.“The Court ORDERS, prior to re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of her parole and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted. The government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk.” | agree with court The court applied standard due process requirements for parole revocation, ensuring that the petitioner is not detained without procedural safeguards. This aligns with constitutional due process principles and the cited district court authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and relies on recent, factually similar district court decisions to support its ruling. It clearly states the procedural history, the petitioner's claim, the respondents' stance, and the specific relief granted. The reasoning is sufficient for a district court order in a non-opposed habeas case based on established district precedent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BLANCA GODINEZ DOMINGO, Case No.: 26-CV-3849 JLS (MSB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 9) 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Blanca Godinez Domingo’s Amended Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 9). Also before the Court 20 is Respondents’ Return to Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 10). Petitioner did not file a 21 Traverse. See generally Docket. 22 Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States in 2024. Pet. at 3. Upon 23 entry, she was detained for several months before being released on her own recognizance. 24 Id. However, after appearing at one of her immigration hearings, she was arrested in the 25 courtroom. Id. Petitioner argues that her revocation of parole without prior notice or an 26 opportunity to be heard violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. As a 27 result, she requests release from custody. Id. Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner 28 was released on parole and thus “do not oppose the petition and defer to the Court on the 1 appropriate relief.” Ret. at 2. The Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to release. See, 2 |\e.g., Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1163-67, 1169 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (granting 3 ||release under similar facts); Tran v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-2653 JLS (GC), 2026 WL 4 || 1303166, at *1—-3 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) (same); Antonio v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-2387- 5 || LL-MMP, 2026 WL 1215037, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2026) (same). 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 7 || Corpus (ECF No. 9), and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from 8 custody subject to the conditions of her preexisting parole. The Court ORDERS, prior to 9 re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for 10 || revocation of her parole and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether 11 detention is warranted. The government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and 12 || convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. The 13 || Parties ace ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by September 8, 2026, confirming that 14 || Petitioner has been released. As this concludes the litigation in this case, the Clerk of Court 15 SHALL CLOSE the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: September 3, 2026 19 on. Janis L. Sammartino 50 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28