Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ISMAEL SANCHEZ ROJAS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04725-RBM-DDL 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 11 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 12 Respondent. [Doc. 5]

13 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Ismael Sanchez Rojas’s (“Petitioner”) 16 Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 5.) For the reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2003. 20 (Doc. 5 at 3.) He has no criminal history and has been “living in Jacksonville, Florida, 21 ever since.” (Id.) “On July 1, 2026, [Petitioner] was driving home from work when an 22 officer from the Jacksonville Police Department pulled him over and asked for his license.” 23 (Id.) Petitioner was subsequently arrested “for operating a motor vehicle without a valid 24 driver’s license.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) “The Jacksonville police held [Petitioner] for two days 25 before” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took him into custody. (Doc. 26 5 at 3.) Petitioner “was never shown a warrant or any other documents relating to his 27 arrest” and “has been detained ever since.” (Id.) Petitioner was placed in removal 28 proceedings after his arrest. (Id.) 1 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 2 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) on August 18, 2026. (Doc. 1.) After the Court referred the 3 Petition to Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. (Doc. 2), Petitioner, by and through 4 counsel, filed the instant Amended Petition. (Doc. 5.) Respondents filed a Response to 5 the Amended Petition on September 1, 2026. (Doc. 7.) Petitioner has not filed an optional 6 reply as of the date of this Order. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 9 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 10 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 11 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 12 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 13 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 14 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 15 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 16 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Petitioner argues that the Court should order his immediate release from immigration 19 custody because his arrest was not statutorily authorized under either 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 20 or 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). (Doc. 5 at 2.) In the alternative, Petitioner argues that he is at 21 least entitled to a bond hearing under the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Rodriguez 22 Vazquez v. Bostock, 25-6842,— F. 4th—, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. 2026). (Id.) 23 Respondents cite Rodriguez Vasquez and assert that “Petitioner is subject to detention 24 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” and “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond 25 hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a).” (Doc. 7 at 2–3) 26 Because the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226, and in light of 27 Respondents’ non-opposition, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. 28 See Rodriguez Vazquez, 2026 WL 2196424, at *3. 1 While Plaintiff contends that release is required because his arrest violated 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1357 (see Doc. 5 at 3–11), the Court finds that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. 3 Section 1226(a) provides that, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, [a 4 noncitizen] may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] 5 is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Section 1357(a)(2) allows 6 warrantless arrests, but only when an officer “has reason to believe that the [noncitizen] so 7 arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to 8 escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.” § 1357(a)(2). “[W]hen arrests are 9 made without a warrant, a custody determination must ordinarily be made within 48 hours, 10 accompanied by a notice to appear, and in the case of continued custody a warrant will be 11 issued post hoc.” Rodriguez Pinzon v. Blanche, No. 3:26-CV-04374-RBM-AHG, 2026 12 WL 2547063, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2026) (quoting Makuiza v. Wesling, 826 F. Supp. 13 3d 176, 180 (D. Me. 2026)). 14 In this case, Petitioner was arrested by the Jacksonville Police Department on July 15 1, 2026, for operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license and he “did not 16 provide any information or documentation to reflect legal status.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Petitioner 17 was presented with a Notice of Custody Determination that next day “in which he 18 acknowledged receipt and did not request that an immigration judge review the custody 19 determination.” (Doc. 7 at 2; see Doc. 7-1, Ex. 3 at 8) He was then served with an 20 administrative warrant on July 3, 2026—two days after his initial arrest—and subsequently 21 transferred to ICE custody. (Doc. 7 at 2; see Doc. 7-1, Ex. 2 at 6) The record before the 22 Court therefore indicates that Petitioner received a custody determination and an 23 administrative warrant within 48 hours of his initial arrest. Accordingly, the Court finds 24 that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. See Valdiviezo v. Mullin, Case No.: 26-CV- 25 4371 JLS (DEB), 2026 WL 2620977, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2026) (concluding a bond 26 hearing was the appropriate remedy where the petitioner’s arrest warrant was served four 27 days after his arrest); Marcelino v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04098-RBM-SBC, 2026 28 WL 2210910, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2026) (declining to order immediate release and 1 || ordering a bond hearing even after assuming the government failed to comply with warrant 2 ||requirement); Gonzalez-Ramos v. Mullin, Case No.: 26-CV-3159 JLS (GC), 2026 WL 3 || 1865899, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2026) (holding a bond hearing was the appropriate 4 remedy for the petitioner’s allegedly warrantless detention). 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Amended Petition (Doc. 5) is GRANTED IN 7 ||PART. To the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody, the Petition is 8 || DENIED. Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS as follows: 9 1. The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized 10 bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 11 this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. 12 2. At the bond hearing, the non-citizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a 13 preponderance of the evidence, that they are not a danger to the community or a 14 flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 15 3. The Government SHALL NOT deny the noncitizen’s bond on the basis that 8 16 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. 17 4. If the noncitizen does not request a continuance, and no hearing occurs within 18 fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, the noncitizen shall be released from 19 Respondents’ custody. 20 5. The Government SHALL FILE a status report on or before October 6, 2026 21 indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing and the results 22 of such hearing. 23 6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATE: September 17, 2026 Reeder 7 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28