Roberto Alcides Fernandez Benitez v. Sixto Marrero, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility; Gregory Archambault, San Diego Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee. It granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing before a specific date, while denying the request for immediate release and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted in part on the first claim“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART on the first claim.” | agree with court The order cites Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775 (9th Cir. 2024), which establishes that immigration detainees are entitled to individualized bond hearings. Granting the writ to compel such a hearing is consistent with this binding Ninth Circuit authority. |
Ordering an individualized bond hearing before a fair, neutral, and open-minded immigration judge“The Respondents are ordered to grant Roberto Alcides Fernandez Benitez an individualized bond hearing. The bond hearing must be before a fair, neutral, and open-minded immigration judge.” | agree with court This remedy directly implements the holding in Martinez v. Clark that the government must provide an individualized bond hearing to determine if a detainee is a flight risk or danger to the community. |
Setting the standard for the bond hearing (preponderance of evidence for petitioner; specific findings required for denial)“If the Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, the IJ must grant bond. If the IJ denies bond, the judge must make specific findings as to why the Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk...” | agree with court The order correctly applies the burden of proof framework established in Martinez v. Clark, requiring the petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not a flight risk or danger, and requiring specific findings if bond is denied. |
Denial of release without a bond hearing“The remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly distinguishes between the right to a bond hearing and the right to immediate release. Martinez v. Clark mandates a hearing, not automatic release, so denying this specific remedy is legally sound. |
Denial of the second, third, fourth, and fifth claims“The second, third, fourth, and fifth claims are DENIED without prejudice.” | unsure The order does not provide the factual or legal basis for denying these specific claims. Without the underlying petition or a statement of reasons, it is impossible to determine if the denials were legally correct. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly applies the binding Ninth Circuit precedent in Martinez v. Clark to grant the petitioner an individualized bond hearing. It accurately states the burden of proof and the requirements for the hearing. However, it fails to explain the basis for denying the second through fifth claims, which is a gap in the reasoning, though the primary ruling on the bond hearing is sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO ALCIDES FERNANDEZ Case No.: 3:26-cv-04307-BTM-MMP BENITEZ, 12 FINAL JUDGMENT Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 SIXTO MARRERO, Warden, Imperial 16 Regional Detention Facility; GREGORY 17 ARCHAMBAULT, San Diego Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and 18 Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE 19 MULLIN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and TODD 20 BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, 21 U.S. Department of Justice, 22 Respondents. 23 24 The Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT: 25 1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART on the first 26 claim. 27 2. The Respondents are ordered to grant Roberto Alcides Fernandez Benitez an 28 individualized bond hearing. The bond hearing must be before a fair, neutral, l and open-minded immigration judge. 2 3. The IJ shall consider where the Petitioner will reside, who any surety may be, 3 the appropriateness of non-financial conditions, the nine factors for an IJ to 4 consider in an individualized bond hearing as set forth in Martinez v. Clark, 5 124 F.4th 775 (9th Cir. 2024), and any other factors the IJ deems relevant in 6 this particular case. See also In re Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (B.1.A. 2006). 7 4. The IJ must determine whether the Petitioner is a danger to the community or 8 a flight risk for which there are no conditions available that will deter such 9 risk. If the Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he is 10 neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, the IJ must grant bond. If 11 the IJ denies bond, the judge must make specific findings as to why the 12 Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the Government 13 must make the audio of the hearing available to the Petitioner’s counsel. 14 5. The hearing must be held on or before September 28, 2026, unless the 15 Petitioner requests a continuance. 16 6. The parties shall file a joint status report on the result of the bond hearing 17 within forty-eight (48) hours of the bond hearing. 18 7. The remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice. 19 8. The second, third, fourth, and fifth claims are DENIED without prejudice. 20 9. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: September 14, 2026 il ‘ 23 Homodbie Barry Ted eh wae 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 □ □□