Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03786

#1

Jun 29, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 170433.), filed by German Reyes Garibay. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Supplement Letter, # 3 Statement of Facts Letter, # 4 Supplement, # 5 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3786-JO-AHG. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard are assigned to the case. (Garibay, German Reyes)(gsw) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

#2

Jun 30, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144 with the following modifications: Petitioner shall file either (i) an amended petition or (ii) a status report recommending against appointment by July 13, 2026. The government shall file a return by July 20, 2026. The 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 may file a traverse by July 23, 2026. In the event Petitioner files an amended petition, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit proof of financial eligibility for appointment of counsel by July 13, 2026. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b).Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for July 30, 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 06/30/2026. (rh) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#3

Jun 30, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Jun 30, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Jun 30, 2026

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

#5

Jul 08, 2026

Financial Affidavit - CJA 23

#6

Jul 08, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#7

Jul 20, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#8

Jul 23, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#9

Jul 24, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: German Reyes Garibay filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention as a violation of due process and seeking his immediate release. See Dkt. 6 ("Am. Pet."). Respondent filed a non-opposition to habeas relief. Dkt. 7. 1. Petitioner entered the United States in 2018 and has continuously resided in the country ever since. See Dkt. 6-1 (Pet. Decl.) ¶ 1. On June 27, 2026, he was detained by immigration officials and has since been continuously detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. See id. ¶ 2; Am. Pet. at 4. 2. For the reasons stated in Esquivel Pacheco v. LaRose, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1174-75 (S.D. Cal. 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 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. See Pet. Decl. ¶ 1. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by continuing to deprive him of his freedom from physical confinement 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"). In Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit recognized that a noncitizen's interest in freedom from physical confinement itself constitutes a core liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Petitioner has been detained for nearly a month although the record contains no evidence that he 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 risks 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 and orders his immediate release.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify detention pursuant to § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondent from redetaining him 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 ordinarily provides for a bond hearing after detention, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who have already been subjected to unconstitutional detention. In order to prevent any further erroneous deprivation of his 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. 10. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 07/24/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#10

Jul 24, 2026

Order

Jul 24, 2026

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

#11

Jul 27, 2026

Notice (Other)