Desmond Akuoh NTANGKU v. Christopher LaROSE, et al
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to reconsider its prior denial of a habeas corpus petition seeking release from immigration detention. The court denied the motion, finding that the cited intervening legal development did not apply to the petitioner's specific circumstances and that the petitioner was improperly attempting to rehash previously rejected arguments.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Reconsider Denied“As a result, the motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the three-part test for reconsideration (new evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law). The petitioner argued for an intervening change in law based on *Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock*. The court correctly noted that *Rodriguez Vazquez* distinguished between aliens 'present in the interior' and those 'encountered at the border.' Since the petitioner was caught 'immediately after crossing' and 'not at a port of entry,' the court correctly determined he fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (mandatory detention) rather than § 1226 (discretionary bond), meaning the new case did not change the outcome for him. Furthermore, the court correctly identified that the petitioner's pivot to a constitutional argument was a rehash of prior claims without new legal development, which is not permitted in a motion to reconsider. |
The order itself: sound — The order is logically sound. It correctly identifies the standard for reconsideration, analyzes the specific legal argument raised by the petitioner regarding the new Ninth Circuit precedent, and correctly applies the facts of the petitioner's detention (border encounter) to the legal distinction in that precedent. It also correctly rejects the petitioner's attempt to introduce new constitutional arguments as a rehash of prior claims.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Desmond Akuoh NTANGKU, Case No.: 26-cv-2257-AGS-VET 4 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER (ECF 26) 5 v. 6 Christopher LaROSE, et al, 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner1 moves to reconsider this Court’s rejection of his habeas corpus petition 10 seeking release from immigration detention. A motion to reconsider is appropriate only 11 when a court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error 12 or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 13 controlling law.” School Dist. No. IJ v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 14 In his motion, petitioner asserts that the controlling law changed with the Ninth Circuit’s 15 recent opinion in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026). (See 16 ECF 26, at 1.) Specifically, petitioner argues that Rodriguez Vazquez “clarified that 17 unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the United States are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 18 and not subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225,” and thus he was “qualified” “for a bond hearing.” (Id.) 19 But petitioner was not an “unadmitted alien[] present in the interior of the 20 United States,” so Rodriguez Vazquez does not help his cause. According to his amended 21 petition, petitioner was caught by border patrol “immediately after crossing” into the 22 United States while “not at a port of entry.” (ECF 13, at 4.) Indeed, Rodriguez Vazquez 23 supports his mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. In that case, the Ninth Circuit 24 25 26 1 This case was originally captioned with petitioner named “Desmond Akuoh 27 Ntangku,” but subsequent briefing and hearings has made it clear his name is “Ntangku Desmond Akuoh.” (See, e.g., ECF 26.) For clarity and continuity, the Court captioned this 28 1 ||noted that reading 8 U.S.C. § 1225 “as limited to aliens encountered at the border’—like 2 petitioner here—“finds great support in the statutory text of § 1225, considered as a 3 || whole.” Rodriguez Vazquez, 183 F.4th at 1182. So, Rodriguez Vazquez does not change 4 ||this Court’s conclusion that petitioner is subject to § 1225 mandatory detention. 5 When respondents made this very point in their opposition to the reconsideration 6 || motion, petitioner “acknowledge[d] the clarification,” but pivoted to a new argument—that 7 ||he was being unconstitutionally held. (See ECF 29, at 2.) But petitioner offers no 8 |/intervening legal development on that issue. (See generally ECF 29.) Instead, he seeks to 9 ||inappropriately rehash the amended petition’s unsuccessful claims, which the Court 10 |/already addressed at length. This will not do. A reconsideration motion is not “a second 11 |/bite at the apple,” in which the “losing party” gets “another opportunity” to “make its 12 || strongest case, reassert arguments, or revamp previously unmeritorious arguments.” Liu v. 13 || Barrelet as Tr. of Barrelet Fam. Tr., No. 3:23-CV-02186-RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 2109003, 14 || at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2025) (cleaned up). 15 As a result, the motion is DENIED. 16 Dated: September 23, 2026 18 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28