Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-04970

#1

Sep 01, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21581275.), filed by Joel David Ramos-Reyes. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit NTA, # 3 Exhibit I-220A, # 4 Exhibit Joint Motion to Dismiss, # 5 Exhibit TPS Approval Notice, # 6 Exhibit EAD Approval Notice)The new case number is 3:26-cv-4970-JO-BJW. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Brian J. White are assigned to the case. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(dde) (anh). (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#2

Sep 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 September 17, 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 9/1/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Sep 03, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance an Substitution of Counsel by Danielle Lynn Brown on behalf of Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella (Brown, Danielle)Attorney Danielle Lynn Brown added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Danielle Lynn Brown added to party Jeremy Casey(pty:res), Attorney Danielle Lynn Brown added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Danielle Lynn Brown added to party David J. Venturella(pty:res)(gsw) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#4

Sep 08, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Brown, Danielle)(gsw) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#5

Sep 08, 2026

TRAVERSE to Petition for Writ of H/C by Joel David Ramos-Reyes filed by Joel David Ramos-Reyes. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(gsw) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#6

Sep 14, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Joel David Ramos-Reyes, a citizen of Venezuela, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on or about December 10, 2021 and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1 P. 4. The next day, the Department of Homeland Security released him on his own recognizance. Id. P. 5. Over four years later, on August 27, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers arrested Petitioner while he was traveling on the highway. Id. P. 8; Dkt. 4 at 10, 11. Petitioner has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Id. P. 8.2. For the reasons stated in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, ---F.4th--- (9th Cir. July 30, 2026) and 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 § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. See Dkt. 1. 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 August 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"); see also Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005).5. Because the Court finds release to be the appropriate relief, it denies Respondents' request to stay the matter pending the September 17, 2026 bond hearing.The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 7.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/14/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#7

Sep 14, 2026

ORDER Granting Habeas Petition [Dkt. 1]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/14/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#8

Sep 16, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd Blanche, Jeremy Casey, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Brown, Danielle)(gsw) (Entered: 09/16/2026)