Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03798

#1

Jun 30, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Bondi, Field Office Director, ICE Field Office, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden, Otay Mesa Imperial Regional Detention Facility ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 170476.), filed by Javier Orlando Gimenez Montilla. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas (Unredacted), # 3 Declaration (Redacted), # 4 Declaration (Unredacted), # 5 Exhibit - ERO Office Information, # 6 Exhibit - Reference Letters, # 7 Exhibit 1, # 8 Exhibit 2, # 9 Exhibit - Discharge Summary, # 10 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3798-JO-MMP. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case.(ggv) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#2

Jun 30, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Javier Orlando Gimenez Montilla. (ggv) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#3

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

#4

Jul 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jul 08, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#6

Jul 10, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Javier Orlando Gimenez Montilla, a citizen of Venezuela, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his immigration detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1 ("Pet."). The government filed a non-opposition to habeas relief. Dkt. 5. 1. Petitioner entered the United States or about September 15, 2021 and was detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 5-1 at 5; Dkt. 1-3 (GM Decl.) ¶ 4; Pet. at 4. He was subsequently released on conditional parole. Dkt. 5-1 at 5. On May 27, 2026, Petitioner was detained by immigration officials in Orlando, Florida, and was subsequently transferred to Louisiana, then Arizona, and ultimately to Imperial Regional Detention Center in California, where he has been detained without a bond hearing since. See id.; GM Decl. ¶¶ 10, 20-21; Pet. at 5. 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. 5-1 at 5; GM Decl. ¶ 4; Pet. at 5. 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 27, 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 07/10/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

#7

Jul 10, 2026

Order

#8

Jul 10, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#9

Jul 10, 2026

Miscellaneous (Other 1)

Jul 10, 2026

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

#10

Jul 13, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion to extend time for Respondents to release Petitioner in Florida from July 13, 2026 to July 14, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 07/13/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous (Other 1)

#11

Jul 15, 2026

Status Report

#12

Jul 21, 2026

Mail Returned