Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03745

#1

Jun 26, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher J. LaRose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21321727.), filed by Tagha Theodosia Abeck. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3745-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case. (Zohrabyan, Naira)(gsw) (jmo). (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#2

Jun 26, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144 with the following modifications: The government's return shall identify and address any individualized concerns regarding Petitioner's danger to the community or flight risk, including the factual basis for any such concerns. Petitioner's optional traverse shall be due within three days of the government's return. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for July 23, 2026 at 9:30 AM. 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 6/26/2026. (mk) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Jun 29, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Jul 02, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

Jul 02, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#6

Jul 21, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Tagha Theodosia Abeck filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her prolonged detention without a bond hearing as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On September 18, 2025, Petitioner entered the United States to seek asylum for political persecution and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1 P. 1. On May 13, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Uganda and denied all other relief. Id. P. 5; Dkt. 4-1 at 13. Petitioner timely filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which remains pending. Dkt. 1 P. 5. Meanwhile, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody without a bond hearing for over ten months. See Id. PP. 1-6.2. For the reasons stated in Faizi v. Larose, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, 2026 WL 1112035, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenges to the constitutionality and legality of her current detention.3. For the reasons stated in Faizi, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, 2026 WL 1112035, *3-*5, the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Faizi, the Court considers the likely duration of detention---both elapsed and anticipated---and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. See id. Here, Petitioner has been detained for over ten months, and her immigration proceedings remain pending before the BIA. See Dkt. 1 PP. 1-6. Further appeal from either side would extend detention by months or years, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed a year without any showing of undue or bad faith delay by Petitioner. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty interest. Respondents argue that the government has an interest in detaining Petitioner because she is a flight risk. See Dkt. 4 at 1-2. While flight risk may justify Petitioner's detention following a bond hearing, it does not justify the denial of a bond hearing.4. For the reasons stated in Mubanga v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-02565-JO-AHG, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2026 WL 1945743 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2026), the Court finds that the appropriate remedy is release. If the government believes that Petitioner presents a flight risk or a danger warranting continued detention, it must first hold a bond hearing to justify that detention.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 7/21/2026. (mk) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

#7

Jul 21, 2026

Order

#8

Jul 21, 2026

CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the court GRANTS the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the case is hereby closed. (rxc) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Jul 21, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Jul 22, 2026

Notice (Other)