— gno.law

District Court, S.D. California · 3:26-cv-04905 · 2026-09-10 · Unknown

Fritznord Saint Clous v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.

Proceeding: original
Outcome: other — The Court finds that 1 || Petitioner is en
Area: civil
Panel: Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:17Z · confidence high

The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a paroled non-citizen who was detained without a hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's immediate release subject to parole conditions and establishing due process requirements for any future re-detention.

What the court decided	The model
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering immediate release of the Petitioner from custody subject to preexisting parole conditions. “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 his preexisting parole.”	agree with court The court relied on recent district court precedents (Noori, Tran, Antonio) to determine that the petitioner's detention without notice or a hearing violated due process. Given the respondents' lack of opposition and the cited authority, the decision to grant release follows from the record and the law as applied by the court.
Ordering that prior to any re-detention, the Petitioner is entitled to notice and a hearing, with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. “The Court ORDERS, prior to re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his 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 the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause to require procedural protections (notice and hearing) before re-detention. The specific standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' is a judicial determination of the appropriate burden for this specific context, consistent with the due process analysis in the cited cases.

What the court decided

The model

Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering immediate release of the Petitioner from custody subject to preexisting parole conditions.

“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 his preexisting parole.”

agree with court
The court relied on recent district court precedents (Noori, Tran, Antonio) to determine that the petitioner's detention without notice or a hearing violated due process. Given the respondents' lack of opposition and the cited authority, the decision to grant release follows from the record and the law as applied by the court.

Ordering that prior to any re-detention, the Petitioner is entitled to notice and a hearing, with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

“The Court ORDERS, prior to re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his 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 the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause to require procedural protections (notice and hearing) before re-detention. The specific standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' is a judicial determination of the appropriate burden for this specific context, consistent with the due process analysis in the cited cases.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise and relies heavily on recent, factually similar district court decisions to support its ruling. It clearly identifies the constitutional issue (Fifth Amendment Due Process) and the specific relief granted. The reasoning is sufficient for a district court order in a case where respondents do not oppose the petition and where controlling district court precedent exists.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRITZNORD SAINT CLOUS, Case No.: 26-CV-4905 JLS (DDL)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., (ECF No. 1) 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Fritznord Saint Clous’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court is Respondents’ Response to Petition 20 (“Ret.,” ECF No. 7). 21 Petitioner, a native of Haiti, crossed the border in 2022 where he was paroled into 22 the United States. Pet. at 1. Petitioner then submitted an asylum application and was 23 granted employment authorization. Id. But while in search of employment, Petitioner was 24 apprehended and taken into custody. Petitioner argues that his arrest and subsequent 25 detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due 26 Process Clause. Id. at 2. As a result, he requests release from custody. Id. Respondents 27 acknowledge that Petitioner was released on parole and thus “do not oppose the petition 28 and defer to the Court on the appropriate relief.” Ret. at 2–3. The Court finds that 1 || Petitioner is entitled to release. See, e.g., Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1163- 2 ||67, 1169 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (granting release under similar facts); Tran v. LaRose, No. 26- 3 || CV-2653 JLS (GC), 2026 WL 1303166, at *1—3 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) (same); Antonio 4 ||v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-2387-LL-MMP, 2026 WL 1215037, at *I-3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 5 || 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 his 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 his 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 are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by September 16, 2026, confirming 14 || that Petitioner has been released. As this concludes the litigation in this case, the Clerk of 15 Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: September 9, 2026 on. Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28