Sanchez Funes v. Warden, Imperial Regional Adult Det. Facility et al

1
3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DERECK RONALDO SANCHEZ
FUNES,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL
ADULT DET. FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORUPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Petitioner 	Dereck 	Ronaldo 	Sanchez 	Funes’s
(“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Doc. 1.) Petitioner claims he is being detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility
in 	violation 	of 	the 	Fifth 	Amendment’s 	Due 	Process 	Clause, 	the 	Immigration 	and
Nationality Act (“INA”), and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. ¶¶ 13, 62–73.)1 For the reasons set
forth below, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
1 	The Court cites the paragraph numbers of the Petition and the CM/ECF electronic
pagination for all other filings.
Case 3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2013, Petitioner, a national and citizen of Guatemala, entered the
United States as an unaccompanied alien child (“UAC”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1232. (Id.
¶¶ 4, 50; Doc. 5 at 1.) He was apprehended and placed in a group home. (Doc. 1 ¶ 50.)
Petitioner was then transferred from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Office
of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”). (Doc. 5 at 1.) Pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 279, Petitioner
was released from custody on April 17, 2013, into the care of his father subject to certain
conditions of release. (Doc. 1, Ex. D at 33.)
On December 15, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained by ICE while working as a truck
driver. (Id. ¶ 52.) He was placed in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229 and
charged as inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) as a noncitizen present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled and under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an immigrant
not in possession of a valid entry document. 	(Id., Ex. C at 31.) 	Petitioner’s removal
proceedings remain pending. (Id. ¶ 52.)
Petitioner requested a custody redetermination hearing and on January 7, 2026, an
immigration judge denied Petitioner bond based on a lack of jurisdiction. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 53; see
id., Ex. B at 25 (citing Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 l&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)).) 	The
immigration judge alternatively found that, should she have jurisdiction, Petitioner should
be released from custody on bond in the amount of $2,000 and subject to several other
conditions. (Id., Ex. B at 25.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
Case 3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Respondents concede that Petitioner, as a member of the Bond Eligible Class
certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
25, 2025), is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and therefore entitled to a bond hearing.
(Doc. 4 at 2.) Because the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226, the Court
GRANTS the Petition.
However, Petitioner argues that “[t]he appropriate remedy should be Petitioner’s
immediate release.” (Doc. 5 at 2.) The Court agrees. As the Court has reasoned in nearly
identical circumstances:
Petitioner has been in immigration custody since [the bond hearing], which
means that circumstances have not changed such that the immigration judge’s
finding should be called into question. 	Particularly given Respondents’
“weighty” interest in the “efficient administration of the immigration laws,”
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982), it does not make sense to require
Respondents to set a new bond hearing before a potentially new immigration
judge just to duplicate the same efforts taken at the [December 31], 2025
hearing. Nor would this remedy prejudice Respondents. First, they have not
contested the immigration judge’s findings or argued that Petitioner poses a
flight risk or danger to the community. Second, should Respondents wish to
make those arguments, they may do so by appealing the immigration judge's
decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 	See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19(f),
1003.38(a); Bui v. Holder, No. 1:15-cv-0-636-JLT, 2015 WL 3903764, at *3
(E.D. Cal. June 25, 2015) (noting that these “regulation[s] demonstrate[ ] a
clearly-established 	administrative 	scheme 	designed 	to 	address 	custodial
determinations, a practice that includes an appeals process”).
Ruiz v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03536-RBM-BJW, 2025 WL 3719888, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Dec. 23, 2025). 	The Court applies this reasoning here and finds that immediate release,
rather than requiring another bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy.
Case 3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. 	CONCLUSION 2
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Respondents
are hereby ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to a $2,000
bond and the conditions of release set forth in the immigration judge’s alternative findings.
(See Doc. 1, Ex. B at 25.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 29, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining
grounds for relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00189-RBM-DDL Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4