Wilmer Lopez Martinez v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — On 1 September 3, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen his in abstentia removal order, 2 which was subsequently rejected because of improper proof of service and failure to submit 3
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a federal immigration detainee who alleged unlawful detention and the lack of an expedited removal order. The court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 pursuant to a final order of removal and had never been issued an expedited removal order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas relief, requiring the petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The record establishes that the petitioner is subject to a final order of removal and is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which provides statutory authority for detention during the removal period. The court also resolved the petitioner's specific factual inquiry regarding expedited removal by finding, based on supplemental briefing, that no such order was issued. Because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his detention lacked statutory authority or violated the Constitution, the denial of the petition follows from the law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for § 2241 habeas relief and the petitioner's burden of proof. It addresses the specific factual dispute raised by the petitioner regarding expedited removal by relying on supplemental briefing and the record. The conclusion that the petitioner is lawfully detained under § 1231 based on a final order of removal is supported by the cited authorities and the facts recited in the order. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this straightforward denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILMER LOPEZ MARTINEZ, Case No.: 26cv4823-LL-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 15 et al., [ECF No. 1] 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Wilmer Lopez Martinez’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return. ECF 21 No. 4. Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 DENIES the Petition. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner, a federal immigration detainee, is a noncitizen who entered the United 25 States in 2024 without inspection. Pet. ¶ 26. On August 13, 2025, Petitioner failed to appear 26 at his removal hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). ECF No. 4-1. An immigration 27 judge (“IJ”) conducted the hearing in abstentia, finding “removability established as 28 charged” and ordered Petitioner removed to Guatemala. Id.; see also Pet. ¶ 3. On 1 September 3, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen his in abstentia removal order, 2 which was subsequently rejected because of improper proof of service and failure to submit 3 proof of payment. ECF No. 4-2; ECF No. 5 at 7. 4 At an unknown point in time, Petitioner was detained by immigration authorities. 5 Pet. ¶ 29. Petitioner is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. ¶ 20. 6 On August 25, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. Pet. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner “is in custody 9 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2241(c); Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999) (“28 U.S.C. § 2241 11 expressly permits the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those 12 aliens are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 13 States.’”). In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his case 14 by a preponderance of evidence. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 970 n.16 15 (9th Cir. 2004); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Petitioner alleges that (1) he is being detained unlawfully because Respondents 18 failed to establish lawful authority for his continued detention; and (2) his counsel was 19 advised that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is processing Petitioner 20 for expedited removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) but “the materials supplied for 21 this Petition . . . do not include a separate expedited-removal order.” Pet. ¶¶ 30–31, 66–69. 22 Petitioner asks this Court to make a narrow, factual determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(e)(2)(B): whether an expedited removal order was in fact issued against Petitioner. 24 Id. ¶¶ 70–74. Petitioner requests the Court to order his release if Respondents cannot 25 establish lawful authority for continued detention.” Id. at 11. 26 Respondents argue that Petitioner fails to state a habeas claim because he is subject 27 to a final order of removal and thus lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. ECF No. 4. 28 l In his Traverse, Petitioner acknowledges that Respondents identified statutory 2 ||authority for his detention—8 U.S.C. § 1231. ECF No. 5 at 2-3. But Petitioner maintains 3 || that Respondents have failed to provide any response as to whether Petitioner is subject to 4 || an expedited removal order. Jd. 5 Pursuant to the Court’s order, Respondents filed supplemental briefing stating that 6 || Petitioner was never issued an expedited removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) 7 attached a copy of the Notice to Appear personally served on Petitioner on February 8 2024. ECF Nos. 7, 7-1. 9 The Court finds Respondents have shown that Petitioner has a final order of removal 10 |/and is currently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and that Petitioner has never been issued 11 expedited removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). ECF Nos. 4,7. Therefore, 12 || Petitioner has not shown that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 13 treaties of the United States. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the Petition and directs the Clerk 16 || of Court to close this matter. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: September 21, 2026 NO 19 QF 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 51 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28