Toaquiza Cuyo v. LaRose

1 26-cv-1136-AGS-VET
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
Cuyo Bayron Ruben TOAQUIZA,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LaROSE,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1136-AGS-VET
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Self-represented petitioner Cuyo Toaquiza seeks a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make
out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing
summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the
relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.”
Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a
petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary
dismissal[.]” Id.
On “April 13, 2023,” Tuaquiza, a noncitizen from “Ecuador,” “entered the U.S.”
(ECF 1-2, at 1.) He was “released” from ICE detention, moved to “New York,” filed an
application for “asylum,” and attended multiple “court hearing[s].” (Id.) He also obtained
a “work permit, health insurance[,]” and a Social Security Number. (Id.) Years later, on
November 8, 	2025, 	he 	was 	“arrested,” 	and 	bounced 	around 	detention 	facilities 	in
“New Jersey,” “Louisiana,” “Texas,” and now California’s “Otay Mesa Detention Center,”
where he remains. (Id.) He asserts that he is being detained unlawfully, as his “detention is
not mandatory” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (ECF 1, at 6.)
Case 3:26-cv-01136-AGS-VET Document 2 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-1136-AGS-VET
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
This challenge merits a response. The two Courts of Appeals to address this question
disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare Castañon-Nava v. United States Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this
preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs who are “unlawfully already in the
United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”), with
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, __ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 323330, at *1
(5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A), petitioners who entered the
United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained” without a bond hearing). But
most petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in functionally identical cases.
See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, ___ F. Supp. 3d. ___, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK),
2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362”
opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final
basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty
different courts”).
In addition, respondents have routinely conceded these claims when brought by
those—like petitioner—who seem to be members of the Bond Eligible Class certified in
Bautista 	v. 	Santacruz, 	No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 	__ 	F. Supp. 3d 	__, 	2025 WL
3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). So, by Monday, March 2, 2026, the government is
ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 and (2) intends to concede petitioner’s right to a bond hearing under that authority.
If respondents do not concede, they must answer the petition by March 5, 2026.
Dated: February 26, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01136-AGS-VET Document 2 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2