Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUES MILSAINT JOHN, Case No. 26-cv-04983-BAS-JAC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner Jacques Milsaint John filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly re-detained after he was released on his 21 own recognizance into the United States. (ECF No. 1.) The Government filed a Return 22 arguing that Petitioner already has a final order of removal so is mandatorily detained under 23 8 U.S.C. §1231. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 24 Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he was 25 previously released. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 28 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 1 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 2 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 3 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 4 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 5 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 6 has standing to pursue this Petition. 7 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 Petitioner was ordered removed to Haiti in 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On March 18, 2022, 9 he was found back in the United States, and he claimed a fear of persecution if returned to 10 Haiti. (ECF No. 1.) A few days later, he was released with Alternatives to Detention 11 conditions. (Id.) Because he received Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), his claim of 12 reasonable fear was never litigated. (Id.) Petitioner has complied with all of the conditions 13 of his release and has not been arrested. (Id.) 14 On August 7, 2026, TPS for Haitians was terminated. (ECF No. 4.) And on August 15 26, 2026, Petitioner was re-detained without notice or an opportunity to be heard and 16 without any changed circumstances with respect to his flight risk or danger to the 17 community. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner seeks immediate release on the same conditions as he 18 was previously released. (Id.) 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and without 21 noticeably changed circumstances, violates Petitioner’s due process rights. Individuals 22 released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a liberty interest in 23 continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (parolees); 24 Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 25 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those courts that have held: 26 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 27 the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 28 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or 1 has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 2 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 3 4 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 5 v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 6 (“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 7 government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 8 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 9 revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 10 Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 11 The Government argues that Petitioner is now subject to a final order of removal, 12 but this is not a changed circumstance and is no different than when he was released from 13 custody in 2022. The only thing that has changed is that TPS for Haitians has been 14 terminated. Petitioner still has a pending claim of reasonable fear if he is removed to Haiti, 15 which has yet to be litigated. 16 Because ICE released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to 17 the community in March 2022, and because there is no evidence those circumstances have 18 changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was initially 19 released. If ICE believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of these 20 changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard 21 promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS that Jacques Milsaint John be released on the same terms 4 and conditions as he was previously released on March 22, 2022. 5 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || DATED: September 22, 2026 9 idl A (Dyfharl 10 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.