L.B. v. Larose et al

1
26-cv-182-RSH-BJW
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
L.B., A# 221-418-084,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-182-RSH-BJW
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 12, 2026, petitioner L.B. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner, a citizen of Turkey,
is detained by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Otay Mesa
Detention Center in San Diego, California. Id. ¶ 1. Petitioner was arrested on February 25,
2025, is awaiting a merits hearing before an immigration judge on her claims for asylum
and related relief, and challenges her continued detention without a bond hearing as being
unduly prolonged in violation of due process. Id. ¶¶ 38, 65, 66. Respondents have not filed
a return.
Petitioner argues that her continued detention without a bond hearing at this point in
time—now over 11 months since her arrest—violates due process, citing and analyzing the
Case 3:26-cv-00182-RSH-BJW Document 5 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-182-RSH-BJW
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
factors used by the district court in Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1117-18
(W.D. Wash. 2019). ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 38-53. This Court agrees. The length of Petitioner’s
detention to date, the fact that she still does not have a merits hearing scheduled, the likely
duration of her future detention, her lack of responsibility for the delays, and her current
conditions of confinement all favor Petitioner.
Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at
which Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if
released. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other
grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial
liberty interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear
and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify
denial of bond”); see also Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785–86 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating
that “the BIA properly noted that the government bore the burden to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that Martinez is a danger to the community” with respect to a bond
hearing for a noncitizen detained under § 1226(c)). The Petition is therefore GRANTED.
Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner L.B.
before an immigration court within ten (10) days of this order as described above. The
Court declines at this time to order Petitioner’s immediate release, to preside at a bond
hearing, or to issue further injunctive relief. To the extent Petitioner seeks to recover
attorneys’ fees, she must pursue them in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and/or the Local Rules of this Court. The hearing date set for February 5, 2026,
and any other dates set in this case are hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00182-RSH-BJW Document 5 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2