Mowla v. Casey et al

- 1 - 26cv0784
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
MD GOLAM MOWLA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00784-BAS-DDL
ORDER:
(1) 	GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1); AND
(2) 	DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (ECF No. 2)
Petitioner MD Golam Mowla filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly denied a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) He
requests that he either be released or granted a bond hearing within 7 days. 	(Id.) 	He
simultaneously filed an Ex Parte Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) with
similar requests. (ECF No. 2.) The Court denied the ex parte TRO but instead indicated
it would consider a Motion for Injunctive Relief under Rule 65(a). (ECF No. 3.) The Court
ordered briefing on the Petition, providing notice to the parties that it intended to
Case 3:26-cv-00784-BAS-DDL Document 7 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv0784
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
consolidate the Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule
65(a)(2). (Id.)
The Government filed a Response to the Petition, agreeing with Petitioner and
acknowledging that “Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and [is] entitled to an
order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”
(ECF No. 5.) 	Petitioner filed a reply. 	(ECF No. 6.) 	For the reasons stated below, the
Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and
conditions as his previous parole. In light of this Order, the Court finds the request for a
TRO (ECF No. 2) to be MOOT.
I. 	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). 	“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 he or
she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It
applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,
687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he
has standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, who was born in Bangladesh, entered the United States on August 25,
2024, without inspection. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) He was briefly detained and then released on
parole. 	(Id.) 	As a condition of his parole, Petitioner was placed in Alternatives to
Detention (“ATD”) monitoring and was required to report to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) regularly. (Id. ¶ 2.) He complied with all the terms of his release.
(Id.) He has no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 4.)
On March 10, 2025, Petitioner was abruptly re-detained by ICE and told he is not
eligible for a bond hearing under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA
Case 3:26-cv-00784-BAS-DDL Document 7 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv0784
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
2025). 	(Id.) 	Petitioner requests that he be released or granted a bond hearing before an
Immigration Judge. (ECF No. 1.)
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Central District of California has certified a class of which Petitioner is a
member and essentially overruled Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, __
F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). This Court has previously
held in multiple cases that it agrees with the Central District in Maldonado Bautista that an
individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section
1225. 	See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998
(S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL
266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL
266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). 	Hence, for all of the reasons stated in these previous
opinions, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 	Because immigration authorities already
assessed Petitioner for flight risk and danger to the community and found that it was
appropriate to release him into the community under ADT monitoring, the Court finds a
bond hearing is not necessary.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS that Petitioner MD Golam Mowla (A#221-159-645) be
immediately released on the same conditions that he was previously released
in August 2024.
The Court further DENIES the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) as
MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 24, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00784-BAS-DDL Document 7 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3