Tinoco v. LaRose et al

1
26-cv-0605-JES-SBC
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
MARY MAIRENA TINOCO,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior
Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office
Director, San Diego Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0605-JES-SBC
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Mary Mairena Tinoco’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on January 30, 2026. ECF No. 1
(“Pet.”). Respondents missed their deadline to respond to the Petition, and Petitioner filed
a Traverse asking for relief on that basis. ECF No. 3. Respondents then filed a return to the
Petition. ECF No. 5 (“Return”). The Court granted Petitioner leave to file an additional
Traverse addressing the issues raised in the Return, which Petitioner did file on February
Case 3:26-cv-00605-JES-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
26-cv-0605-JES-SBC
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
10, 2026. ECF Nos. 6, 7. The Court ordered a hearing on the remaining issues in the
Petition, which occurred on February 18, 2026.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Nicaraguan national who entered the United States without inspection
in December of 2021. Pet. ¶ 25. On December 16, 2021, Department of Homeland Security
granted Petitioner release on her own recognizance, subject to an Order of Release on
Recognizance Form I-220(A). Id. ¶ 26.
Petitioner has resided in the U.S. ever since. Id. She is married to a U.S. Citizen,
who has filed a Form I-130 immigration petition on her behalf. Id. ¶ 28. That petition is
currently pending. Id.
Petitioner was recently arrested and charged with petty theft in Florida. Id. ¶ 26;
Return at 3. She was subsequently arrested and taken into custody by officers of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and placed in removal proceedings. Pet.
¶¶ 29-30; Return at 2. Petitioner states, and Respondents do not contest, that she has not
received any individualized custody hearing. Pet. ¶ 39.
On February 17, 2025, the State of Florida entered a disposition of Nolle Pros in
Petitioner’s petty theft case, reflecting its declination to prosecute the charge. ECF No. 9
at 1.
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). A court may grant a writ of
habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas
corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in
that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301
Case 3:26-cv-00605-JES-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
26-cv-0605-JES-SBC
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
(2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview
of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see
also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
III. DISCUSSION
In her petition, Petitioner argues that the lack of individualized custody
determination in her case violates the due process clause and the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) considering her prior Order of Release on Recognizance. Pet. ¶¶ 48.
Respondents argued that Petitioner was not entitled to release or a bond hearing because
she was subject to the mandatory detention provision of 1226(c) as amended by the Laken
Riley Act following her arrest for theft. Return at 2. Shortly after the briefing in this matter,
Petitioner’s counsel submitted a status update relating that the State of Florida had declined
to prosecute Petitioner’s criminal case. ECF No. 9.
At the hearing in this matter, Respondents represented that they now concede
Petitioner is entitled to an order from this Court ordering a bond hearing due to the
disposition of her criminal case. Petitioner’s counsel stated that the parties were in
agreement regarding a bond hearing, and that a bond hearing was the only remedy sought
by Petitioner at this time. The parties’ agreement that Petitioner is no longer subject to
mandatory detention under 1226(c) after Florida has declined to prosecute her case is in
keeping with the findings of other courts facing as-applied challenges to the Laken-Riley
Act’s arrest-only provision. See Brandon Y. M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01962-SKO
(HC), 2026 WL 125234, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (“The Court further finds serious
constitutional concerns would be presented if the LRA encompassed Petitioner's arrest and
subsequent release without the filing of a formal accusatory pleading.”); Hairo v.
Crawford, No. 2:25CV704, 2026 WL 286176, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2026) (holding that
the Act’s arrest-only provision ceased to apply when underlying charges are dropped as a
matter of statutory interpretation).
Case 3:26-cv-00605-JES-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
26-cv-0605-JES-SBC
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
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED as to
the requested remedy of a bond hearing. Petitioner’s remaining claims are DENIED as
moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition, and ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this Order. At
the hearing, Respondents must provide Petitioner with a constitutionally
adequate and individualized bond hearing consistent with this order and
Respondent’s concession that 1226(c) does not govern; and
(2) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five days of
providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing, including apprising the
Court of the results of the hearing and providing a copy of the bond order.
The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00605-JES-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4