Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-05476

#1

Sep 23, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21672328.), filed by Ronald Fildor. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)The new case number is 3:26-cv-5476-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(sjt) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#2

Sep 23, 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 15, 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 9/23/2026. (ta) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

Sep 23, 2026

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

#3

Sep 25, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff on behalf of Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella (Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party Christopher LaRose(pty:res), Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Michael David Stinnett-Kassoff added to party David J. Venturella(pty:res)(gsw) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#4

Sep 29, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#5

Sep 29, 2026

TRAVERSE to Petition for Writ of H/C by Ronald Fildor filed by Ronald Fildor. (Monsalve, Alejandro)(gsw) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#6

Oct 13, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Ronald Fildor, a citizen of Haiti, 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 ("Pet."). Respondents do not oppose a bond hearing (but do oppose release) based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, ---F.4th--- (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Dkt. 4. 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection and was detained by the government on July 18, 2021. See Pet. ¶¶ 4, 26, 27. Several days later, in July 2021, the Department of Homeland Security released him on conditional parole. See id.; Dkt. 4. Over five years later, on September 21, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE officers. See Pet. ¶¶ 6, 34, 54. Since that time, Petitioner has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. ¶ 7. 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 Pet. ¶¶ 4, 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 government has offered no evidence that it made an individualized determination of his flight risk or danger to the public. 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). In fact, Respondents afforded Petitioner no process before detaining him. 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 September 21, 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). 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); O.G. v. Albarran, No. 1:26-CV-00010-TLN-DMC, 2026 WL 19105, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2026). The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 10/13/2026. (mxc) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

#7

Oct 13, 2026

ORDER Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DKT. 1 ). Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 10/13/2026.(gsw) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

#8

Oct 13, 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.(gsw) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

Oct 13, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Oct 14, 2026

NOTICE of Compliance by Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella re 7 Order (Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)(gsw) (Entered: 10/14/2026)

#10

Oct 15, 2026

NOTICE Confirming Petitioner's Release with Required Declaration by Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella re 7 Order (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jesus Blanco)(Stinnett-Kassoff, Michael)(gsw) (Entered: 10/15/2026)