Jatin v. Casey et al

1
26-cv-785-RSH-BLM
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
JATIN JATIN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASE, Warden,
Imperial Regional Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-785-RSH-BLM
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On February 9, 2026, petitioner Jatin Jatin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), as well as a motion for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner argues that rather than being subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 6, 25, 26.
On February 23, 2026, Respondents filed a return taking the position that Petitioner
is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) because he was present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled, but “acknowledg[ing] that Courts in this
District have repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion.” ECF No. 4 at 2 (collecting
orders 	from 	over 	a 	dozen 	district 	judges 	in 	the 	Southern 	District 	of 	California).
Respondents further “acknowledge[] that this District’s prior decisions would control the
Case 3:26-cv-00785-RSH-BLM Document 7 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-785-RSH-BLM
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
result here if the Court adheres to its prior decisions[.]” Id. at 3.
The Court agrees with Respondents that the cited prior decisions from this District,
while not binding precedent, contain rulings that if followed would also control the result
here. The Court joins those rulings and determines that Petitioner is entitled to a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are directed to arrange a bond
hearing for petitioner Jatin Jatin before an immigration court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within seven (7) days of this order. The Court declines to issue further declaratory or
injunctive relief. If Petitioner seeks to recover fees, he must do so by noticed motion in the
manner prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court,
and the undersigned’s chambers rules.
In light of the foregoing disposition, Petitioner’s application for a temporary
restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. The hearing set for March 5, 2026 is
VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00785-RSH-BLM Document 7 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2