None v. Warden et al

1
26cv958-LL-MMP
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
AMIT NONE,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL
ADULT DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv958-LL-MMP
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Amit None’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return in which
they acknowledge that (1) Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 25, 2025); (2) a final judgment has been entered as to the Bond Eligible Class;
and 	(3) 	per 	the 	entry 	of 	final 	judgment, 	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. 7; see also Maldonado Bautista v. Noem,
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-00958-LL-MMP Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26cv958-LL-MMP
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
No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025)
(entering final judgment for members of the Bond Eligible Class).1
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.2
2. 	Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing
before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the
date of this order. The Court notes that Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216
(BIA 2025), has been vacated as contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act,
and cannot be invoked to decline jurisdiction by the immigration judge. Bautista v.
Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2026 WL 468284, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18,
2026).
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
1 Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice
of Appeal. However, the Ninth Circuit has held the filing of an appeal does not suspend
the preclusive effect of a lower court judgment. Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324
(9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
2 Petitioner requests attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act
[Pet. at 8], which the Court DENIES without prejudice.
Case 3:26-cv-00958-LL-MMP Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2