Kevin Deofredo Perez Ordonez v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 28 1 On July 30, 2026, ICE apprehended Petitioner in San Diego, California near the
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen who argued that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. The court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide a constitutionally adequate bond hearing by September 25, 2026, and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” | agree with court The court's decision to grant the petition is supported by the Respondents' explicit acknowledgment in their Return that the Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and their lack of opposition to a bond hearing. The order relies on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, which establishes the framework for bond hearings in such cases. The court's order to provide a 'constitutional adequate bond hearing' aligns with the legal standards for due process in immigration detention. |
Denying the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Moot“Petitioner’s Motion for TRO is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The TRO was sought to secure immediate release or a bond hearing. Because the court granted the underlying habeas petition and ordered a specific date for the bond hearing, the urgent relief sought by the TRO is no longer necessary, rendering the motion moot. This is a standard procedural disposition when the underlying claim is resolved. |
Enjoining Respondents from transferring Petitioner before the bond hearing“Respondents are enjoined from transferring Petitioner before a bond hearing takes place.” | agree with court This injunction is a necessary ancillary order to ensure the effectiveness of the writ of habeas corpus. Without it, the government could transfer the petitioner to another facility, potentially delaying or obstructing the court-ordered bond hearing. This is a standard measure to preserve the court's jurisdiction and the petitioner's rights. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal basis for the petitioner's claim (Fifth Amendment due process in the context of immigration detention), relies on the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock), and issues a clear, enforceable order that addresses the petitioner's request. The denial of the TRO as moot is procedurally correct given the grant of the underlying petition. The order is concise and directly responsive to the filings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DEOFREDO PEREZ Case No.: 26-cv-4954-BJC-VET ORDONEZ, 12 ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR Petitioner, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND v. 14 DENYING TEMPORARY CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al, RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT 15 [ECF NO. 2] Respondents. 16 18 On August 31, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along with a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. 20 Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in 21 2013. He was detained, placed into removal proceedings, and subsequently released from 22 custody. ECF No. 1 at 4. Following his release, Petitioner lived in the community for more 23 than a decade. He has no criminal convictions in the United States or abroad. Petitioner's 24 father, Alex Perez Gomez, is a United States citizen. Petitioner has begun pursuing 25 consular processing for an immigrant visa on that basis. Petitioner's removal proceedings 26 were administratively closed on January 23, 2017, and remain closed. No final order of 27 removal has been entered against him. 28 1 On July 30, 2026, ICE apprehended Petitioner in San Diego, California near the 2 || United States border with Mexico after the truck he was driving was discovered with four 3 ||individuals hidden in the back seat. ECF No. 5-1. Petitioner was arrested for alien 4 ||smuggling by Border Patrol Agents. /d. He has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention 5 || Center since that time. 6 Petitioner contends that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates the 7 || Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He requests that this Court assume 8 ||jurisdiction over the matter, grant the Petition and order his immediate release or, in the 9 || alternative, direct Respondents to schedule a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 10 || ECF No. 1. 11 On September 9, 2026, Respondents filed a Return to the Petition in which they 12 || “acknowledge[] that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” pursuant 13 || to Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. 14 || July 30, 2026). ECF No. 5 at 1. Therefore, “Respondents do not oppose an order from this 15 || Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Jd. at 2. 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 17 Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a constitutional adequate bond hearing no later 18 || than September 25, 2026. Petitioner’s Motion for TRO is DENIED as moot. ECF No. 2. 19 ||Respondents are enjoined from transferring Petitioner before a bond hearing takes place. 20 || The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: September 10, 2026 23 24 6 CL fe Degqionn haf 26 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 28