Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-05324

#1

Sep 16, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Jeremy Casey ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 172307.), filed by Felix Enrique Alfaro Cuadra. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt, # 3 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-5324-JO-JAC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Janet A. Cabral are assigned to the case. (Felix Enrique Alfaro Cuadra)(sxb) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#2

Sep 16, 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 October 8, 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 9/17/2026. (ta) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#3

Sep 16, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Felix Enrique Alfaro Cuadra. (ggv) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 17, 2026

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

#4

Sep 20, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Danielle Lynn Brown on behalf of Jeremy Casey (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Brown, Danielle)Attorney Danielle Lynn Brown added to party Jeremy Casey(pty:res)(gsw) (Entered: 09/20/2026)

#5

Sep 23, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Jeremy Casey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4, # 2 Proof of Service)(Brown, Danielle)(gsw) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#6

Sep 28, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On September 23, 2026, Respondent filed a return to Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 5. Upon review, the Court finds the return provides inconsistent information regarding several key points, including Petitioner's criminal history and duration of immigration custody. For example, the return asserts that Petitioner "was encountered by ICE and placed in custody" on April 29, 2026, but subsequently states, "[a]s of the date of the filing of this Return, Petitioner has been in ICE custody for a little over one month." Dkt. 5 at 2, 5. The return also states that Petitioner was arrested on June 24, 2026, but the attached records do not reflect this arrest. Id. at 5, Ex. 1. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondent to submit an amended return by September 30, 2026 providing complete and accurate information on Petitioner's criminal and immigration history. The October 8, 2026 hearing is VACATED and rescheduled for October 15, 2026 at 9:30 AM. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/28/2026. (ta) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

Sep 28, 2026

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

#7

Sep 29, 2026

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Jeremy Casey. Amendment to 5 Return to Petition for Writ of H/C . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4, # 2 Proof of Service)(Brown, Danielle)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#8

Sep 29, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Felix Enrique Alfaro Cuadra filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention without a hearing as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on October 8, 2023 on humanitarian parole. See Dkt. 7. Petitioner was arrested on November 8, 2025 and charged with possession of cocaine. Id. He was served with a notice to appear and arrested by ICE on April 29, 2026. Id. The government initiated removal proceedings and detained Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Id. As a result, Petitioner has remained in immigration detention for almost five months. Id. 2. For the reasons stated in Faizi v. Larose, 831 F. Supp. 3d 993, 998-99 (S.D. Cal. 2026), the Court finds that 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. 3. For the reasons stated in Faizi, 831 F. Supp. 3d at 1000-03, and Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 874-78 (E.D. Cal. 2022), the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Faizi, 831 F. Supp. 3d, at 1002-03, the Court considers the likely duration of detention---both elapsed and anticipated---and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. Here, Petitioner has been detained for almost five months, and his immigration proceedings remain pending without a decision. See Dkt. 7. Further appeals from either side would extend detention by months or years, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed a year without any showing of undue or bad faith delay by Petitioner. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty interest, especially here where the government has not identified a legitimate interest in continuing to detain Petitioner without a bond hearing and the cost of providing one would be minimal. See Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off., No. 3:19-CV-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1862254, *7 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off. Dir., No. 3:19-CV-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1855189 (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020) ("The government interest at stake here is not the continued detention of Petitioner, but the government's ability to detain him without a bond hearing."); Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ("Detention for its own sake... is not a legitimate government interest."). The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 9. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/29/2026. (ta) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#9

Sep 29, 2026

ORDER Granting Habeas Petition [Dkt. 1]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/29/2026. (ta) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#10

Sep 29, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On September 16, 2026, pro se Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 3. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), the Court may appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas petitioners when "the interests of justice so require." See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). In deciding whether to appoint counsel, courts consider the petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits and the ability to articulate claims pro se in light of the complexity of the issues. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner adequately asserts due process claims challenging the lawfulness of his detention. Because he has sufficiently articulated his claims, the Court DENIES the motion to appoint counsel [Dkt. 3]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/29/2026. (ta) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#11

Sep 29, 2026

CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the court GRANTS the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the case is hereby closed.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

Sep 29, 2026

Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel

Sep 29, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#12

Oct 14, 2026

Declaration