Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03771

#1

Jun 29, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher J. LaRose, Jesus Rocha ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 170426), filed by Jose Garrido Nieto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3771-JO-AHG. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard are assigned to the case.(bdc) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#2

Jul 01, 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 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 07/01/2026. (rh) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rxc). (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

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

#3

Jul 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Jul 08, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Jul 08, 2026

Certificate of Service

#6

Jul 10, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Jose Garrido Nieto filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention as a violation of due process and seeking his immediate release. See Dkt. 1 ("Pet."). Respondents filed a non-opposition to habeas relief. Dkt. 4. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on or around February 1, 2005 and has resided in the country intermittently since that time. See Dkt. 4-1 at 4, 16. On June 2, 2026, during one such period of residence, he was arrested by immigration officials and has since been continuously detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. See id. at 4; Pet. at 2. 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 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 Dkt. 4-1 at 4, 16. 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 over 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 Respondents 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. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 07/10/2026. (rh) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rxc). (Entered: 07/10/2026)

#7

Jul 10, 2026

Order

Jul 10, 2026

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

#8

Jul 13, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#9

Jul 13, 2026

Notice (Other)

#10

Jul 23, 2026

Mail Returned