Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-05958

#1

Oct 20, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Patrick Divver, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21772903.), filed by Isaias Ros Domingo. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-5958-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case. (Baker, William)(tac) (mjw). (Entered: 10/20/2026)

#2

Oct 21, 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 November 12, 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 10/21/2026. (txa) (Entered: 10/21/2026)

Oct 21, 2026

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

#3

Oct 28, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Antonio Estrada on behalf of Todd Blanche, Patrick Divver, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin (Estrada, Antonio)Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Patrick Divver(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Christopher LaRose(pty:res), Attorney Antonio Estrada added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res)(gsw) (Entered: 10/28/2026)

#4

Oct 28, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Todd Blanche, Patrick Divver, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Estrada, Antonio)(gsw) (Entered: 10/28/2026)

#5

Oct 29, 2026

TRAVERSE to Petition for Writ of H/C by Isaias Ros Domingo, re 4 Return to Petition for Writ of H/C filed by Isaias Ros Domingo. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Baker, William)(gsw) (Entered: 10/29/2026)

#6

Nov 04, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Isaias Ros Domingo, a citizen of Guatemala, 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 as an unaccompanied child in November 2022 and was detained by the government upon his arrival. Dkt. 1. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently released him on his own recognizance. Id.; Dkt. 4 at 2. Over three years later, on October 15, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. 2. For the reasons stated in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165, 117273 (9th Cir. 2026) and Esquivel Pacheco v. LaRose, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 117475 (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. Dkt. 1. 3. The Court further finds that Respondents violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without an individualized determination concerning whether that revocation was warranted. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (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 placed him on conditional parole and granted his release. 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). Petitioner's release was conditioned on the following: (1) his compliance with supervision requirements, such as attending regular check-ins with ICE; and (2) the continued absence of circumstances rendering him a flight risk or danger to the community. Dkt. 1 at 6; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) (requiring DHS to determine that an individual does not pose a danger to persons or property and is likely to appear for future proceedings before granting conditional release); Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that, under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8), ICE makes an individualized custody determination and may release an individual if the individual is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk). Respondents have offered no evidence that they made any individualized determination that Petitioner violated these conditions before revoking the release he was granted. In fact, Respondents afforded Petitioner no process at all before detaining him. The absence of an individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his previously granted conditional liberty, and Respondents have offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would have outweighed this substantial liberty interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since his arrest on October 15, 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 both enjoyed a liberty interest previously granted by the government and had that liberty interest wrongfully extinguished without due process. In order to prevent a repetition of the same constitutional violation that he has just endured and to satisfy due process requirements, this hearing must take place prior to any detention. See Esquivel Pacheco v. LaRose, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1180-81 (S.D. Cal. 2026) (explaining that release alone did not provide complete relief because the petitioner remained vulnerable to re-detention on the same unlawful basis and that a pre-deprivation bond hearing was necessary to prevent recurrence of the constitutional violation). See also 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); 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). 5. Though Petitioner also brings claims alleging his arrest was warrantless, the Court finds it need not resolve these matters at this time as Petitioner is entitled to relief under his alternate claim. Lujan v. Garcia, 734 F.3d 917, 935 (9th Cir. 2013) (agreeing that, having granted habeas relief on an alternative ground, the district court need not address the petitioner's additional claim). The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 11/04/2026.(mxc) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#7

Nov 04, 2026

ORDER Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DKT. 1 ). Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 11/4/2026.(gsw) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#8

Nov 04, 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: 11/04/2026)

Nov 04, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Nov 05, 2026

RETURN to Petition for Writ of H/C by Todd Blanche, Patrick Divver, Christopher LaRose, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Estrada, Antonio)(gsw) (Entered: 11/05/2026)