Saul Ernesto Gonzalez Melendez v. Warden/Facility Administrator, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas petition by a detainee arguing that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) violated due process because he was not presented with a warrant bearing his name. The court granted the petition by ordering an individualized bond hearing within seven days and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for habeas corpus granted, ordering an individualized bond hearing.“Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED as follows. Respondents are directed to arrange a bond hearing for Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before an immigration court within seven (7) days of this order.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), a noncitizen detained pending removal is entitled to an individualized bond hearing. The court relies on recent Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Vazquez) and persuasive district court authority (Marcelino, Gonzalez-Ramos) to determine that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy for the alleged procedural defect (lack of a warrant bearing the petitioner's name) rather than immediate release. This aligns with the general principle that § 1226(a) detention is not punitive and does not automatically require release for minor procedural irregularities if the statutory basis for detention remains valid. |
Motion for temporary restraining order denied as moot.“In light of the relief granted herein, Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Since the court granted the substantive relief requested in the petition (a bond hearing), the request for a preliminary injunction or TRO to secure immediate release or a hearing is no longer necessary. Denying it as moot is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly applies the standard of review for § 2241 petitions in the immigration context by relying on the most recent Ninth Circuit authority (Rodriguez Vazquez) and consistent district court precedent within the same district. The court appropriately distinguishes between the remedy of immediate release and the remedy of a bond hearing, finding the latter sufficient to address the due process concerns raised regarding the warrant. There are no significant gaps in reasoning for a summary order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAUL ERNESTO GONZALEZ Case No.: 26-cv-4944-RSH-VET MELENDEZ, 12 ORDER GRANTING PETITION Petitioner, 13 v. 14 WARDEN/FACILITY 15 ADMINISTRATOR, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 On August 31, 2026, petitioner Saul Ernesto Gonzalez Melendez, proceeding pro se, 19 filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) and a motion 20 for a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner contends that his detention is 21 governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that he was not presented with a warrant bearing his name 22 at the time of his arrest, and that his detention without a bond hearing violates due process. 23 ECF Nos. 1 at 5–8; 1-2 at 2. Petitioner seeks his immediate release or, alternatively, an 24 individualized bond hearing. ECF No. 1 at 9. 25 On September 8, 2026, the Government filed a return acknowledging that Petitioner 26 is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) pursuant to Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 27 183 F.4th 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2026). ECF No. 5 at 1. The Form I-213 attached to the 28 1 || Government’s return indicates that Petitioner was arrested on July 29, 2026, pursuant to a 2 || Warrant of Removal (Form I-205). ECF No. 5-1 at 3. 3 The Court concludes that an individualized bond hearing is the appropriate remedy 4 ||under the circumstances presented here. See Marcelino v. LaRose, No. 3:26-cv-04098- 5 ||RBM-SBC, 2026 WL 2210910, at *2—3 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2026) (declining to order 6 ||immediate release and instead ordering a bond hearing even assuming respondents had 7 || failed to comply with warrant requirement); Gonzalez-Ramos vy. Mullin, No. 26-CV-3159 8 (GC), 2026 WL 1865899, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2026) (concluding that a bond 9 || hearing was the appropriate remedy for the petitioner’s asserted warrantless detention). 10 Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED as follows. Respondents are directed to 11 || arrange a bond hearing for Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before an immigration court 12 || within seven (7) days of this order. 13 In light of the relief granted herein, Petitioner’s application for a temporary 14 || restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: September 11, 2026 ‘ 7 Jekut C [one 18 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28