Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03852

#1

Jul 02, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Daniel Brightman, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Christopher J. LaRosa, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21346581.), filed by Jaime Salvador Juarez Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3852-JO-JAC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Janet A. Cabral are assigned to the case. (Hernandez, Victor)(tac) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#2

Jul 06, 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 07/06/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#3

Jul 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Jul 06, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#4

Jul 09, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#5

Jul 09, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner, a 53-year-old diabetic individual, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order stating that he has not received a single dose of insulin since his detention on June 27, 2026, and is consequently experiencing vision loss. Dkt. 4 at 24. The Court ORDERS Respondents to file a declaration by the end of the day on Friday, July 10, 2026, confirming that Petitioner will receive all necessary medication pending resolution of the habeas petition. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 7/9/2026. (mk) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

Jul 09, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#6

Jul 10, 2026

Motion to File Documents Under Seal

#7

Jul 10, 2026

Sealed Lodged Proposed Document

#8

Jul 10, 2026

Notice (Other)

#9

Jul 10, 2026

Declaration

#10

Jul 11, 2026

Response to Petition

#11

Jul 13, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Jaime Salvador Juarez Gonzalez 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. Respondent filed a non-opposition to habeas relief. Dkt. 10. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on or around September 15, 2009 and has continuously resided in the country ever since. Dkt. 1 P. 24. On June 27, 2026, he was detained by immigration officials and has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. PP. 24, 37. 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. 1 P. 24. 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. Although Petitioner appears to have a prior arrest for driving under the influence in 2009, see Dkt. 10-1 at 3, the government has offered no evidence that it detained him after considering those facts and making an individualized determination of his danger to the public or flight risk. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). Instead, Respondents afforded Petitioner no process before or after detaining him. 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. 12. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 07/13/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#12

Jul 13, 2026

Order Granting Habeas Petition. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 07/13/2026. (rh) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

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

#13

Jul 14, 2026

Notice (Other)

#14

Jul 15, 2026

Judgment - Clerk