Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03630

#1

Jun 19, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Gregory J. Archambeault, Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21295376.), filed by Wiliam Selany Menjibar-Gabarrete. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3630-JO-DDL. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner are assigned to the case. (Rodriguez, Lilia)(gsw) (anh). (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#2

Jun 22, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for this Immigration Habeas Petition from Chief Judge Order No. 144, which is available on the court's website with the following modification: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for July 9, 2026 at 9:30 AM at Courtroom 13B before Judge Jinsook Ohta. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 6/22/2026. (mk) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

Jun 22, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#3

Jun 25, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Jun 25, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jun 29, 2026

Response to Petition

#6

Jul 08, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Wiliam Selany Menjibar-Gabarrete, a national of Honduras, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on or about June 2019 and was detained by immigration officials. Id. PP. 17-19. The government subsequently initiated removal proceedings and released Petitioner from custody. Id. P. 18. Almost seven years later, on May 13, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Petitioner near his job site. Id. PP. 3, 20. Petitioner has since been detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Id. P. 20. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that (i) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. See Dkt. 1. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his release without an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the public. Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail"). Petitioner acquired a protectable liberty interest when the government previously granted his release pending removal proceedings. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (grant of parole carries an "implicit promise" that liberty will be revoked only for violation of release conditions). The record contains no evidence that Petitioner has a criminal history, poses a danger to the community, or presents a flight risk, and the government has articulated no individualized justification for his continued detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since his arrest on May 13, 2026 and grants his habeas petition requesting immediate release.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondent from redetaining Petitioner without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of his liberty interest. See, e.g., Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025); Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2025); O.G. v. Albarran, No. 1:26-CV-00010-TLN-DMC, 2026 WL 19105, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2026). While § 1226 allows the government to hold a noncitizen in custody while it decides whether to initially grant release, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who already enjoy a liberty interest. In order to prevent an erroneous deprivation of that existing liberty interest and satisfy due process requirements, this hearing must take place prior to any detention. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779-80 (2008) (while habeas relief commonly includes release from physical imprisonment, "depending on the circumstances, more [relief] may be required"); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner's release--revocable at the government's discretion--did not provide complete relief where petitioner sought a legal ruling that he could only be redetained upon a bond hearing); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005) (despite release, petitioner's habeas claim challenging the statutory authority for his detention "continue[d] to present a live case or controversy" because the court could provide relief to prevent redetention on the same allegedly unlawful basis).The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 7/8/2026. (mk) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

#7

Jul 08, 2026

Order

Jul 08, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#8

Jul 09, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#9

Jul 10, 2026

Status Report